Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,489   Posts: 1,542,931   Online: 862
      
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    603

    "Are You Ever Surprised?"

    Background: The question (below) was posed to me at lunch today, when I was in the company gym working out. The conversation began when one of my office mates asked about photography after noting my Dwayne's Kodachrome T-shirt. The conversation evolved from generalities (what interests me...what interests her, etc.) into a bit of a discussion of the differences between shooting analogue and digital. She asked if I didn't find it difficult to shoot something without really knowing for sure that I had actually captured the image I wanted. She suggested (argued?) that one of the virtues of shooting digital was that one got immediate confirmation. I had to think about the question before I responded that "I generally have a pretty good idea what I have given that I have been shooting for a long time with virtually the same materials." The conversation continued on touching on a number of other photography-related matters (where do you like to shoot, how often do you go out just to shoot, etc.

    After I returned to work, I thought about the question further and began to wonder if I had been completely forthright with my response. Perhaps, I should have qualified my answer? In retrospect, I would maintain that, when shooting black and white under normal circumstances (i.e. not in those cases where "existing light" conditions make the effort a bit of a crap shoot), I am seldom surprised at the results I have obtained (this assertion is based on, as I said above, using a limited number of materials, for particular applications and processing with tight control (yes, I know, accidents do happen!!). Now where I began to doubt the veracity of my response/position is in the case of shooting colour transparency film. For a normal (i.e. metered) exposure, I have a very good idea about what I have based upon the films I am currently (for three years-plus ) using for my colour work (E100G/E100VS). Where I am less certain is when I bracket (depending upon the situation, up to +/-2/3 in 1/3 increments); I have had shots that should have turned out, but ended up being a waste of film; I have had other brackets that left me astonished with how they rendered a particular scene, often in a manner far more effective/dramatic than I would have imagined.

    So, let me throw the question out there: Do you always "get" the image you saw when looking through the viewfinder? Or, when shooting, in certain circumstances, do you get something that sometimes surprises/disappoints you?
    An assortment of F-series Nikons (F to F6, excluding the F4) with quite a few Nikkors, a pair of M6s with some Leitz glass, a pair of 500c/ms with a wide range of Zeiss optics and, just to help keep Duracell solvent, a D800.

    Favourite films: (1). KE ("Kodachrome Era"): 35mm: PKM25 and PKR64, HP5/Tri-X; 120: PKR64, PanF, FP4. (2). PKE ("Post-Kodachrome Era"): (a) 35mm: E100G, HP5 Plus/Tri-X and Delta 3200; (b) 120: E100G, PanF Plus, FP4 Plus, TMax 100.

  2. #2
    David Allen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    417
    I am never surprised with what I get in technical terms. However, for many years I have used just one camera, one lens, one film and one developer. The real surprise is when I get a negative that I think is not worth printing (poorly seen). Generally from the 10 exposures on medium format, I will get a minimum of 50% that I print - with the ones that I choose to not print being a combination of poorly seen images, images too much like what I already have printed and duplicates (when working at 1/30 or 1/15 hand-held I always shoot two images in case of camera shake).

    Bests,

    David
    www.dsallen.de

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,059
    Quote Originally Posted by BradleyK View Post
    ...So, let me throw the question out there: Do you always "get" the image you saw when looking through the viewfinder? Or, when shooting, in certain circumstances, do you get something that sometimes surprises/disappoints you?
    Q1: Generally but not always. Q2: Sometimes, but it is more often surprise rather than disappointment. But I've had that same discussion and understand the "opposing" viewpoint, despite being an avid film photographer.

  4. #4
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    631
    Images
    2
    Hmm. Seeing in viewfinder to getting the same image...? How do you define that exactly? Fairly sure that 99% time, it's me wanting certain parts more emphasised in the image and not exactly as is in the viewfinder. composition wise yes, but colours, contrast etc., are subjective to what you want -hence ' making the image'?

    Sent from Tap-a-talk

  5. #5
    hdeyong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central Canada and Southern France
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    295
    I'm surprised you went to the gym at lunch time.
    Because I do the opposite to David Allen, I've had too many surprises lately, (usually unpleasant), and am paring back the number and type of cameras and film I use. So no, I haven't always got what I expected, and yes, there have been a number of disappointments.

  6. #6
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,064
    When I started out I was mostly surprised with the results I got from color film. I often forgot the changes in color temp during the course of a day from cold to warm (sunset). The surprises weren't bad in fact they were often quiet nice. Also I see neither the image coming straight from the sensor nor the image coming straight from the film as final result. The magic and final results happen at the post-shutterpress stage meaning darkroom/fauxtoshop.
    The neg/file is the basis but not the whole building.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    141
    I try hard to get the image I want from the viewfinder. Most of the times I don´t like the result at all. But if I wait a few days and then look at the image again, I think I start liking it. I might have a problem with too high expectations.

  8. #8
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Jersey .........formerly NYC.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    458
    She seems to asking a lot of questions about you. Hmmm.

    That aside, and more to the point of your question, I bracket. That's my chimping. Of course I would do more corrective work immediately if I had a screen to see the shot as I'm shooting. Of course, with digital, I don't take the time to do my best compared to when I'm shooting MF film. Even with bracketing, the pictures often fail. If not with exposures, with just plain content. If I get one good shot on a roll, I'm happy.

  9. #9
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    I will say to question number one that I always get what I physically see in the viewfinder. What surprises me is when my associative memories interfere with vision and I am expecting some golden quality that just wasn't stinking there in the first place.

    As to content, I have not had a snowy, blue butt egret enter the scene from the side in the milliseconds that the lens is open only to be there when I am able to view TTL once more. But I am hopeful.

    I do however envy you and your associates' lunchroom chatter. Though entertaining, mine generally consists of bodily sounds and odor. Rather juvenile. Suits me just fine.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath
    APUG BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE
    DE Darkroom

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  10. #10
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,064
    Hey Film can beat digital in the realm of instant gratification Polaroid/Fujiroid/Impossible 30 - 60 secs from photo to print. And you can review the final result not the in between.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin