If someone gets to the same N by taking tons of photos or choosing deliberately, who is to judge
2nd your theory that the easy access to photographing more (latex paint allegory) should create more great photographers (fine art painters allegory) is flawed because I think the respective artform is becoming more passé (photography/painting) to begin with
Shoot how you wish, we are all winners when we photograph....
I suspect that most of the great photographers have discarded many more shots than they have kept.
In genres with highly unpredictable subjects, Blansky is absolutely right. You not only need to be really good at it, but you need to shoot a lot more than you think you do to get a great image.
If I'm photographing birds, for instance, I know that for every 5 or 6 shots where I feel that I got it on film, there may only be one or two where I really did get the shot I thought I had, because birds move faster than we can see, and we really don't know what happened when the mirror was up. And then I probably shot a whole roll to get those five that I thought were good. I use a fast motor drive, but in single shot mode, unless I want a sequence, because that's the way the camera reacts fastest. Standing next to other photographers at popular birding spots, I find I shoot half as much as the more serious ones. 6-7 rolls in a morning or evening is a typical bird photo outing for me.
Photography is a numbers game. You increase you chances of success by taking multiple shots. I do have to say that the larger the format, the less you take multiple shots. Also some photographers "warm up" their subjects by taking multiple exposures.
zsas, you misunderstand my OP, I am saying just the opposite.
Originally Posted by zsas
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
What if in say 10 years there is this outstanding photographer that we all love and praise, when interviewed s/he talks about how s/he takes hundreds/thousands of photos. Should/would that matter if we liked his/her work? That is my problem.
Clive I love your work, if you told me that you used a motor drive and run through 1000s of rolls of film or maybe you shoot say 5 rolls of film a year, it would not matter to me one whit, what matters to me is that I like the result....process is immaterial
Format, subject matter and where we are in the life cycle of artistic journey is what matters, how many rolls/sheets of film it take to be happy is personal and I think off limits to judge
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I would not begrudge anyone the few shots leading up to a climactic moment that may or may not happen (so the shots leading up may be the best of the sequence). This isn't "machine-gunning" that we often deride.
I also hold the belief that very, very small differences exist between Good and Fine Photography. These differences can occur and be caught during "machine-gunning." I aim for somewhere between Good and Fine. I believe this can be caught in smaller sets.
First of all, how do you define 'brilliant'? Did you mean mean 'rich', 'highly acclaimed', 's/he has lots of exposure' or 'I don't see any photography that I like done on digital'?
Originally Posted by cliveh
Secondly, photographers work in the moment. They watch events unfold before the lens; people do things, clouds cover and uncover the sun, rain falls, the model smiles, snow melts, goals are scored, athletes cross finish lines, the moon crosses the sky. If photographers don't capture what's before the lens, it's gone and they've missed it. You can't photograph something that happened ten minutes ago (although the mad boffins at Kodak are currently working on this!*).
Your statement would make a great subject for a dissertation - I think you should go and study 'brilliant' photographers, compare the contact sheets of film users and 'virtual contact sheets' of digital users and see if you can ascertain a difference in 'brilliance' that can't be explained by genre, subject, the user's experience and a whole host of other factors. I'll look forward to your results - then you won't have to listen to what someone without a clue said. Finally, I find your argument about as convincing as saying that gardeners who dig lots of holes with a new, blue spade aren't half as good as those who dig fewer holes with an old, red spade. YMMV.
*Shhhhhh - it's tippy-top secret!
Ken Rockwell once recommended that when doing night shots, instead of using a tripod, one should take a few dozen captures and only keep the sharp ones. Fascinating approach ...
If I finish off a roll of 120 in the Rolleiflex and I really like the last image, I'll take it again on the new roll. Insurance in case something happens to one of the rolls.
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.
He's a moron.
Originally Posted by Slixtiesix
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.