It wasn't staged, but it was the second flag to be raised, and was larger than the first.
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
Selecting a still image
What the heck are you talking about?
Originally Posted by desertratt
The only mention I see of expense is mine and this reply makes no sense to me unless I was badly misunderstood. Mt point is that you can spray hundreds of frames with abandon at every subject with digital and choose one later. Even with motor drives that just isn't practical to the same degree with film. Partly that's because of expense which escalates so rapidly as to become a factor for almost anyone if you shoot that wildly but it will also be limited by things like 36 shot film rolls. I haven't seen a bulk film back for a 35mm camera in a long time and even if you find one bulk color film is no longer available.
"Spray and pray" is just a lot more practical to a much greater extent with digital than with film. And in that sense this discussion of carefully recording a single moment verses shooting an entire sequence and selecting it later is something of a digital versus film discussion.
Yes, and I appreciate the wiki article explained I was wrong and where the misconception came from... he "had" staged a later shot and said so, but when he said it he thought they were talking about the other one... The great shot, under the circumstances, was nothing short of an amazing decisive moment.
Originally Posted by lxdude
while still images are pretty beautiful in many regards
i am becoming more of a fan of time based photography.
where a single frame is exposed for an extended length of time
and instead of a fraction of a second being recorded on whatever the media might be
it is a long span. the world almost stops, and remnants remain.
the original photographers were quite involved with this, without realizing it because
their plates, paper, dags were so insensitive to light.
i'd rather forget the stream existed than be part of it.
I had to re-read this response too. I am sure desertratt badly misunderstood you. But the non sequitur was intriguing.
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
I'd often wondered what it'd be like to spend an evening with someone rich and famous. Hopefully they are your friend. And friends don't care how much money you have, they're just happy you're alive.
(I won't address "camera is a tool" because I just don't like that phrase).
I often think of the Star Trek tricorder when the immersive recording theme comes up... Conceptually, if you record everything around you for later analysis... Then someone can go in and pick out the frame later. In most cases I'd be repulsed with the results.
But what if the person doing the editing has an extraordinary graphic sensitivity (and no proclivity or ability to go out into the world to experience the original scene first-hand). The world could gain some equally extraordinary still photographs from the team of an explorer with curiosity and an editor back home.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The fact that cliveh likes to troll his digital vs analog stuff a couple of times a week is granted, pretty juvenile and the fact that pray and spray has been around long before digital, and whether it's easier with digital or not is debatable and pretty much beside the point, BUT cliveh also does pose some interesting questions buried under the surface.
The still image vs a movie or progression of shots is an interesting question. As a photographer, "nailing the shot" is important to me. But then for me I'm trying to nail the best of the expression I'm going for. If I was shooting action, then nailing the shot would definitely involve a motordrive, for the simple reason that I sooner get the shot, than worry if a bunch of guys at APUG, very few of whom are professionals or peers, would approved of the technique.
As for the impact of an individual shot vs a movie that's a tough one. I've been affected by individual shots, by their impact, whether it depravity or love or whatever. But not as much as I've been moved by a film or scene from a film, usually with music behind it.
So for me, both can have powerful impact but I've been more IMPRESSED by an individual shot but more MOVED by a movie or scene.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
Ding .... we have a winner!
Originally Posted by blansky
Please don’t feel compelled to contribute to the discussion in my posts, particularly as those in the Ethics and Philosophy thread are a bit out of your depth.
Originally Posted by blansky
“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”
I suspect he will find it hard not to, as you produce several inane posts daily.
Originally Posted by cliveh
Really, cliveh?!? I've been on APUG for awhile, and I've always looked forward to blansky's participation and humorous takes in any forum, especially when he was mainly analog. He's only said what many of us have tried to broach perhaps more subtly, that your many posits can be a bit pedantic.
Originally Posted by cliveh
FYI: I have come to steer clear of cliveh treads, but as I am presently making a video with a GoPro2, I was sufficiently intrigued to stick a toe in the water. I totally accept the tool for what it is. The resulting video is merely a string of jpeg stills. And for the record (in case you didn't know), I shoot and print plenty of "stills" in film formats ranging from small to large. Brrrrrrrrrrrr....