Imagine this situation: you are on the street, one person is turned back to you (you don't see the face - could be interesting, could not), and you wait that he/she turn, or half turn - and then maybe it will fit to the whole frame. In my view you must be ready and in split second press the shutter, even risking that photo will be no good. You simply can not have all planned on the street.
For example this photo:
I wanted to have whole face of the man - but simply it was not possible - face was behind the flowers all the time, so I waited, and on the end I got not 100% what I wanted, but anyhow I pressed the shutter.
Or this one:
It would be much better photo is she was looking on my side, but she did not, I let it go , and took the picture anyhow - knowing that result will not be as good as I want it to be.
I'm 100% lay-person/hobbyist, and only do photography because I enjoy it. It does separate into a "playful, fun, carefree experimental" and "more serious, careful painstaking" sides. For me the pinhole / paper negatives / alt side keeps things fun and different and more lighthearted, with few expectations. When it's just a piece of photo paper in a coffee can, it is easier to let go and just immerse in your surroundings and not have set ideas of what it will be.
But then it really does take some work and effort to learn how to make good negatives and learn how to print them well. That side of things for me is "more traditional" I guess, and even if I do it for the rest of my life I won't get as much experience as some here at APUG have. I'm beginning to realize the "fun" side needs to mix more with the "serious film" side. But I feel like I'm discovering and seeing new things all the time, so I guess I just naturally make enough mistakes so I'm bound to stumble on something good!
We've all had "happy accidents" and serendipity. I think of photography as discovery as much as pre-planned creation.
To Simons point...
The clientele have changed. If I told the wedding planner/bride that I was only giving them 16 images for their wedding album, they would probably cry, and not hire me for sure, when I tell them "I only give the best 200 images, they say "but can't we just have the others unedited? We want them all!" It's a digital issue, they will never look at them, or even post them, but they WANT them all, just to have.
Anyway, 13 out of 20 isn't too bad
I shoot 8x10 and 14x17. I don't let 'er go but sometimes I shoot a backup if subject is far away from home. I only expose a sheet if I'm moved to do so.
When using the 4x5 I almost always make 2 identical exposures... I hate doubling my film costs but everytime I end up with a big hair or scratch or some other issue on one and not the other I am relieved.
Kinda broke right now and trying to save some money for paper so I am definitely being a bit more picky with my choices... that tends to change with the thickness of my wallet!
Last edited by Shawn Dougherty; 05-09-2014 at 12:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I think you're right on this point. I did weddings back in the 70s. I was shooting 6x6 and took 5 rolls of color film. I do not remember ever loading the 5th roll, and usually didn't finish the 4th. I had a routine, which I had discussed with the principle parties way ahead of time, to ensure that I got the important (read: salable) shots. I generally delivered 40-45 proofs, and prints were ordered from about 10-15. That's not to say that the others weren't good (OR that the ones ordered were) it's just that those dozen images told the story and got the "smiles".
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
The difference is that the client was buying prints. Now, they buy a CDROM, and it should have ALL the pictures.
As for the prints, I know of one that's still hanging on the couple's wall after 40+ years, and I've seen others posted on Facebook!
Where will those discs be in 40 years?
Sorry - sort of got off on a tangent here.
I qualify my answer by stating: "It depends upon which format/film I am shooting."
Originally Posted by jnanian
Film "consumption" with medium format, for me, is "self-regulating"; attached to a tripod, I work slowly and methodically. Rarely - except when I am confronted with rapidly changing lighting conditions - will I ever expose more than a frame on a particular setup...if I am shooting black and white. For transparency film, however, I have always bracketed my shots - sometimes just to see what an image would look like with more or less exposure.
My experience with 35mm is an entirely different "kettle of fish." With an SLR, color transparency materials are always bracketed - sometimes up to +/- 2/3, depending upon subject matter and lighting conditions. With black and white, however, largely owing to the subject matter (much of it is what might be termed "photojournalism"), I tend to be even more liberal in my use of film. When shooting with the rangefinder, however, I tend to shoot "very tight" (perhaps because I have yet to master a "timely loading" of my M6s...lol), looking more and shooting less (not wanting to be caught loading when something reeeaaalllyyy interesting happens).
All-in-all, though, I confess to not being terribly concerned about the amount of film shot: photography is something that gives me immense pleasure, so what the hey!
Some Nikons (F6, F5x2, F3P, F3HP, F2ASx4, F2A, F2 and a D800), with Ai/Ais Nikkors ranging from 15mm to 600mm; Leicas (M6X2), with Leitz glass from 28 to 90mm and a pair of Hasselblads (500c/ms), with Zeiss glass from 50 to 250mm. A bit of stuff for a no-longer practicing professional, but justifiable for a now-converted hobbyist who absolutely loves taking/making pictures.
i totally hear where you are coming from
Originally Posted by BradleyK
if i didn't get an obscenely crazy deal for 5x7 film, i wouldn't expose it as often and as carefree.
that is one of the reasons i have settled into expired film ... if you have a recipe of exposure and development that
works with the film, it makes it very easy to consume film that didn't cost very much to feed the beast..
To Simon's points, I agree generally, but would point out that when I shot weddings, I tended to shoot two different types of photos.
The "money" shots - the ones critical to the event and those that are expected of an experienced professional; and
The grace note shots - the ones that record the nuances, the unexpected memorable moments, the moments in and around the oments of the day that aren't necessarily expected, but certainly form the fabric of the memories.
The latter type of shots are quite unstructured, and usually involve more shots, and a few more failures.
The photographer's work isn't really a success unless both types of shots are accomplished with some vision and flare.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Originally Posted by MattKing