Each Frame Counts. Shoot Wisely (Page 5): In the 70s I recall listening to a debate between two top glamour photographers in the UK. One was an advocate of carefully composing each...

Canonuser Loc: UK and South Africa

In the 70s I recall listening to a debate between two top glamour photographers in the UK. One was an advocate of carefully composing each shot, the other of firing off shots rapidly and accepting that only a small percentage would be acceptable, but at the same time argueing that he would have far more top class shots than the other photographer.
I followed this argument for some time and concluded that personal preference, style and available finance played a large part in the decision making process on this, whilst still not being certain who got the highest number of top class shots.

blacks2 Loc: SF. Bay area

billwassmann wrote:

That entry by blacks2 is indicative of the changes... (show quote)

Bill, I will post some images tonight in the gallery that were taken in Yosemite in the late 1880 by a unknown French photographer on 8x10 plates, it will knock your socks of what one can do with primitive equipment.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

winterrose wrote:

Mister Stever, kindly define and clarify your use of the word obtuse in the context of this attack on my statement.

You're wondering whether I'm taking def. 1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand or 2. more than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees...or basically a tangent.

Actually, they both fit.

Blaster6 Loc: Central PA

RAK wrote:

Yea I went to Hawaii and took a brick of 200asa 36 exposure high end slide film. Used half the brick in nine days of shooting. Film and processing made up one third of the price of the trip. I became much more frugal after that, especially since only about a third of the shots were worth keeping.

OK, maybe venturing off topic here but getting hung up on your budget trip to Hawaii and wondering how I went wrong spending what I did...

Brick--10 rolls--right?
5 rolls at let's say $12/roll = $60
Processing (mounted) about $15/roll = $75

$135 X 3 = $405 for a 9 day trip to Hawaii & 180 color slides. (60 keepers)

Either my numbers are way off somewhere or I am traveling with you on my next trip to Hawaii.

Pepsiman Loc: New York City

sarge69 wrote:

Very good advice and really nice photos.

Sarge69

Agree. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

SteveR wrote:

That's the reason I tried to pull up the info on the photo. Your speed is too slow for fast planes like these. I'd shoot at 1/1000 to try to stop the details while they're in flight. It might mean boosting your ISO a bit, but your ISO is pretty low. You could shoot at ISO 400 or even 800 easily and not run into noise problems.

Yes, I did keep SS down. I wanted to show speed in the flight. My last event, I shot at 1/1000 and froze the shot, but lost the blur. I do play around with this while at the event and take a peek to see how they are looking. Always appreciate sound advice. Thank you.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

I had started with film though 35 mm not 4x5. By the time I went digital I had about twenty thousand images on kodachrome slides. Off I went to explore the digital world.

It was three or four years later when I finally bought a high end slide scanner and began to digitize my slides. That exercise sent shock waves through me. I came to realize very quickly that I had been taking better images twenty years earlier than I was doing with digital. Why?

Well, with slides whatever you get is all you'll get. You can't edit them or work around any problems. So I had to pay attention to what I was doing particularly since it was a week before I'd see the results, a time period that prevented me from doing the shots over usually.

But of course as we all discover, digital is so wonderful. We see instant results and if we happen to bugger something up there's always the computer that can fix many of the problems. Is that really the way to work?

I didn't think so. From that day on I resolved to once again pay attention to what I was doing and I was determined to ensure that I'd get it right in the camera instead of relying on the computer.

So for most shots I take a bit longer but that saves me a lot of time later in editing. However I also do wildlife and insects among other things. And these don't conveniently pose for me as people will do. So for those I still make sure that my settings are what I need but I'll then fire off a burst of images to ensure that I capture my subject successfully and also sometimes to capture specific motions or expressions.

The best thing that ever happened to me was to digitize my slides. Now my images are increasingly better and the slides seem more like the work of an amateur.

I think everyone who starts in photography should be forced to shoot slides for two or three years in order to develop the skills for getting things right in the camera. After that digital becomes a really powerful tool instead of just a hit and miss lottery with the winner being the one who shot enough images in a burst mode to get lucky enough to have a good one.

ROCKY JA Loc: Living in Burnsville, Minnesota

Gryffon wrote:

Rocky I was interested to read your comments about the Graphex 4x5. I used to own a Rolleicord and like you took much care with every shot, there were only 12 on each roll. But I think the change came not with digital but with 35mm. 36 shots per roll (40 or more if you bulk bought the film and loaded your own cassettes) must have altered our attitudes as to how precious each shot was.

Your right! I remember loading my film back then. We could fire off a lot of film, and if you had your own darkroom, it was that much better! I'd have my film processed, but I'd make my own enlargement.. Things were easy back then. 8-)

billwassmann Loc: Emerson, NJ

I used to load my own also. But back then we learned to think about our pictures, not just shoot and hope one turns out, as some people use digital. With film also, we had a choice of palette; every film was a bit different so you could pick the film for the subject. Some will say it can now be done in image editing but I have never found it works as well.

ROCKY JA Loc: Living in Burnsville, Minnesota

wilsondl2 wrote:

I remember going to a Bill Stockwell wedding seminar in the erly 70's and he said severel times "film is cheap" get the shots and sell them. - Dave

When I wrote "Each frame counts, shoot wisely," I didn't expect this many hits. It was meant as a tool to assist other photographers in becoming more aware of their creative talents. It wasn't meant to hurt or anger anyone. Please except my deepest apology.

Rocky

LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley

ROCKY JA wrote:

When I wrote "Each frame counts, shoot wisely," I didn't expect this many hits. It was meant as a tool to assist other photographers in becoming more aware of their creative talents. It wasn't meant to hurt or anger anyone. Please except my deepest apology.

Rocky

Why are you apologizing Rocky? I think it's an excellent topic and the thread is clicking along very well. Good job!

R'laine Loc: Bay of Plenty, New Zealand.

winterrose wrote:

Does that really matter either? If someone is silly enough to pay them they will continue and if not, they will not.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

Extraordinary advice!!!!
I like to think of many of the digital people who have come to photography during the digital age as "machine gunners" and the old timers, like myself, who started with 4X5 press cameras or 2 1/4 twin lens reflex cameras as "snipers..." We study our target...one shot...one kill...

Blaster6 Loc: Central PA

ROCKY JA wrote:

When I wrote "Each frame counts, shoot wisely," I didn't expect this many hits. It was meant as a tool to assist other photographers in becoming more aware of their creative talents. It wasn't meant to hurt or anger anyone. Please except my deepest apology.

Rocky

I hope you didn't think I was offended. This is a great thread and I got to read about how someone who has been around longer than I have used to do things. I say to each their own and would never look down on someone for shooting either 1 or 100 photos. Everyone has a different background and different reasons for doing what they do. It is really hard to know what experience someone has without knowing them personally.

I guess what I am trying to say is don't judge the method, judge the result.

dsturr

ROCKY JA wrote:

I had an old Graphex 4x5 camera that I enjoyed usi... (show quote)

Probably sitting on a shelf in your garage right between your 8 track and your grandfather's gramophone. If not and you really miss it, then check out ebay; literally hundreds of them for sale.
By the way, you misspelled the name of your fondly remembered camera.