Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
My reply to an earlier thread here, set me thinking about how much film I (and you! ) must have wasted ove the years. The writer admitted to standing on a street corner for around two hours, and exposing five rolls of film, around 180 shots - for goodness sake!. Presumably they were all of total strangers, just walking around, now why, I wonder would anyone want that many pics of unknown people?, I like to look out for interesting characters and situations, and always carry a camera, I often return home having shot very little, and occasionally - nothing!, but am usually happy to have just been out-and-about. This type of photography must surely present a really strong case for digital, especially if like me, you are on a pension!.
I still like to shoot film occasionaly, and all my negatives are sleeved, and filed - although I think most of them will go to the skip, when I'm gone!. I am not asking any questions, or making big statements here - just a few morning musings!
Cheers, Dave.
I still like to shoot film occasionaly, and all my negatives are sleeved, and filed - although I think most of them will go to the skip, when I'm gone!. I am not asking any questions, or making big statements here - just a few morning musings!
Cheers, Dave.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Well, I'm no fan of street photography, so you'll get no argument there.
But I don't think the concept of "waisting film" has any meaning. Like "waisting time," it's all in the eye of the beholder.
But I don't think the concept of "waisting film" has any meaning. Like "waisting time," it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Maxapple88
Established
You never waste film. Some people just shoot more, some shoot less - how much is completely up to them.
retnull
Well-known
I agree. Now that I can use my favorite old lenses on the Panasonic G1, I've stopped shooting film (at least temporarily). Now there's no concern about film and development costs. So I find myself feeling free to shoot _whatever_...which includes street shots.
Not interested in having hundreds of images of people I don't know, but location shots, or architectural detail, or random bits of street stuff now are more interesting to me. Before I wouldn't have risked it, because of the expense.
Not interested in having hundreds of images of people I don't know, but location shots, or architectural detail, or random bits of street stuff now are more interesting to me. Before I wouldn't have risked it, because of the expense.
Michael Markey
Veteran
It is a cost consideration if you don`t dev your own. Develope and scan to a disc costs about £17 in the UK for 36 ex (Ilford).
I use film pretty much all the time but for street on the fly stuff, if you were doing it most of the time, one would need to consider which would be the most cost effective process.
I use film pretty much all the time but for street on the fly stuff, if you were doing it most of the time, one would need to consider which would be the most cost effective process.
yanidel
Well-known
That is the difficulty and beauty of street photography. Very challenging to come up with great pictures with the common stuff out there. This is where composition, light, subject, contrast, colors, interactions, and many times luck come into matter to hopefully once in a while snap that one amazing photograph that rewards your errances through the city.
Last edited:
dmr
Registered Abuser
Agree on this! Film is cheap!
I admit that I print and share a fairly small percentage of what I take. As I've said, if I can get one real "keeper" per roll I'm very happy.
NathanJD
Well-known
As far as I’m concerned the only wasted film is the leader and those exposures that you forget to take the lens cap off for. each other shot has the potential for greatness.
trix
Established
Dave, face it !
ALL of you negatives and ALL of your files will go to the skip because nobody will waste his time to look thru them ;-)
If you want to leave something behind make prints of you family-snaps, they will survive and will be appreciated by generations to come !
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Film maybe 'cheap' to people with oodles of disposable income! - but at around £4 or £5 per roll, plus proccess ( self or shop ) with one real 'keeper' per roll, I would not consider it cheap, or be "very happy", but you may be a lot more easilly satisfied ( or have a lot more money! ) than me!Agree on this! Film is cheap!
I admit that I print and share a fairly small percentage of what I take. As I've said, if I can get one real "keeper" per roll I'm very happy.
Dave.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
My father too. My father even owned a camera store once and was friends with WeeGee, but he HATED to waste a picture.
He'd load a 36 exposure roll into his Contaflex and it would sometimes be 3 or 4 years before he'd finish it. He'd take one or two photos at a birthday, or if a relative came, or a photo of a new car in the driveway if he bought one.
It almost killed him to take a picture. He'd never take a photo of a stranger or anything that wasn't "ritualistic", like a holiday photo.
I used the camera at the World's Fair in 1965 when I went with him, and every time I took a photo of something he would wince and glare at me. I "wasted" almost a whole roll at the World's Fair on just "stupid buildings" and "crowds of strangers".
He'd load a 36 exposure roll into his Contaflex and it would sometimes be 3 or 4 years before he'd finish it. He'd take one or two photos at a birthday, or if a relative came, or a photo of a new car in the driveway if he bought one.
It almost killed him to take a picture. He'd never take a photo of a stranger or anything that wasn't "ritualistic", like a holiday photo.
I used the camera at the World's Fair in 1965 when I went with him, and every time I took a photo of something he would wince and glare at me. I "wasted" almost a whole roll at the World's Fair on just "stupid buildings" and "crowds of strangers".
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
The more film that we "waste," the greater chance that film will be around in the future to use when we really need it. Think of it as an investment.
Then there's the view that there are no wasted shots. It's just that some are more successful than others.
~Joe
Then there's the view that there are no wasted shots. It's just that some are more successful than others.
~Joe
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'm in the "you can't waste film camp" too. I don't fire away willy nilly, but find I go through the films pretty quickly when I'm seeing well. Do I get something I'll print from every roll? No. But reviewing the proofsheets is still a learning experience these twenty-five years down the road. I've returned to places to get something right that I saw but executed less than perfectly- most often this involves not having the right lens with me at the time.
I agree, the more we use now the more we'll have to use in twenty-five years time.
I agree, the more we use now the more we'll have to use in twenty-five years time.
benmacphoto
Well-known
I agree with this statement, however I find myself very reserved when it comes to shooting even with digital. I take between 3-7 shots of a group performing. I could not imagine shooting 5 rolls of film in two hours though.
The whole problem is now moot with digital cameras.
MartinL
MartinL
I never leave the house with the purpose of taking photos. I always take a camera, and often as not I return without taking it out of the case. I sometimes pause if I anticipate an interesting snap is about to happen, but I won't hang around for it for long--waiting for something to happen. I like to have a record of where I've been and anything amusing or worth remembering along the way.
Bottom line? It's all about me! And sometimes I take a "good" picture.
btgc
Veteran
If I have couple of frames before roll is finished and I have no clear idea about what to shoot, I snap some test shots of specific lens at specific aperture/light.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
There are a couple of possibilities to cut down on wasting film and/or money. Switch to a twin lens reflex (Rolleiflex, Yashicamat, Minolta Autocord) or small press camera like the Koni-Omega and learn to live with 10 or 12 frames per roll at 50 or 60 cents per "click". It makes you think. At the other extreme would be bulk loaded movie film "short ends" of Eastman 5222 which could get you down to well below 10 cents per frame.
One thing that I've been noticing as I go through all of these dozens of boxes of negatives and contact sheets dating as far back as 1961: The stuff that I was getting paid to shoot was competent enough. I had good useable photos to throw on the editor's desk. They were rarely much more than competent and useable though.
The random shot, the spur of the moment stuff, the "just because", what my editor referred to as "wild art"? Those were the ones that often got run as a feature photo, the ones that ended up in my portfolio and getting exhibited. The lack of pressure coupled with a don't-give-a-damned attitude compared to an asigned shoot made the difference.
Another problem we have is that our photos that we make today aren't judged in the context of history and clothing styles, the buildings and automobiles of days past. Take that iconic photo by HCB of the guy jumping over a puddle. Would it be as iconic if the guy was wearing baggy knee length shorts showing the top of his boxers as he held them up with his hand, wearing Nikes and half a dozen earings, a Burger King in the background? Not now or next week perhaps, but very likely in fifty years it will.
Keep shooting, save everything.
http:thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
One thing that I've been noticing as I go through all of these dozens of boxes of negatives and contact sheets dating as far back as 1961: The stuff that I was getting paid to shoot was competent enough. I had good useable photos to throw on the editor's desk. They were rarely much more than competent and useable though.
The random shot, the spur of the moment stuff, the "just because", what my editor referred to as "wild art"? Those were the ones that often got run as a feature photo, the ones that ended up in my portfolio and getting exhibited. The lack of pressure coupled with a don't-give-a-damned attitude compared to an asigned shoot made the difference.
Another problem we have is that our photos that we make today aren't judged in the context of history and clothing styles, the buildings and automobiles of days past. Take that iconic photo by HCB of the guy jumping over a puddle. Would it be as iconic if the guy was wearing baggy knee length shorts showing the top of his boxers as he held them up with his hand, wearing Nikes and half a dozen earings, a Burger King in the background? Not now or next week perhaps, but very likely in fifty years it will.
Keep shooting, save everything.
http:thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
sonofdanang, you are too flattering! I never thought of myself as a great photographer and I was always too lazy, too easily distracted to market myself with any great success. So many other things to do, from girls to fishing, and more recently writing and politics. I hated writing when I was a student, then I had a journalism teacher who flat out told me that I had no writing talent. "Find another major" she told me. Next day I tossed three national magazines on her desk with a "These editors didn't agree with you." I never went back. Well, I did take a single semester of anthropology to keep out daughter in the day care after my wife transferred to another college. That's how I can brag about my four-point-oh average "all the way through college".
That editor I mentioned who liked "wild art", Jim Kukar, and I are still friends and get together every week or so for breakfast or lunch. We talk about all the publications we'd both worked at, our kids, politics, about everything but sports. Neither of us give a hoot about last night's scores or which player for what team got injured or traded. He was always sending me out on shoots, telling me that the reporter would meet me there. He or she would never show up. I'd scribble a few notes and when I got back to the office sit down at the Underwood and pound out the story.
Well, here we are thirty or forty years later and he finally admitted that no reporter was ever told to cover the stories. Jim liked my writing better. I wish that he'd told me that sooner! He's the one that got me interested in politics also.
Now that a member of our city council and I started a historical society I have this gold mine of local pictures but I sure wish that I'd kept the stories that ran with them. Trying to remember the details, the back story to put things in context, isn't always easy. I have scribbled names and sometimes unreadable notes on the back of some contact sheets. Others are on the glassines. I can usually remember the camera and lens because I'd pretty much settled on what I like way back then and I'm still shooting with the same beat-to-hell Leica kit with the addition of the Bessa L and the 15mm Heliar.
The best advice I can give is to be at ease around people, be friendly rather than sneaky, strike up a conversation, get involved and act as if you're comfortable being with them. Work in close. Don't carry a ton of equipment. Wear a suit and tie when you're with others dressed that way. Otherwise a forgot-to-shave look with ratty looking faded jeans with a coffee stain or two might be better than clean new ones. Either way you can still strike up that conversation. Try it.
(That's wordy enough fo one post!) http:thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
That editor I mentioned who liked "wild art", Jim Kukar, and I are still friends and get together every week or so for breakfast or lunch. We talk about all the publications we'd both worked at, our kids, politics, about everything but sports. Neither of us give a hoot about last night's scores or which player for what team got injured or traded. He was always sending me out on shoots, telling me that the reporter would meet me there. He or she would never show up. I'd scribble a few notes and when I got back to the office sit down at the Underwood and pound out the story.
Well, here we are thirty or forty years later and he finally admitted that no reporter was ever told to cover the stories. Jim liked my writing better. I wish that he'd told me that sooner! He's the one that got me interested in politics also.
Now that a member of our city council and I started a historical society I have this gold mine of local pictures but I sure wish that I'd kept the stories that ran with them. Trying to remember the details, the back story to put things in context, isn't always easy. I have scribbled names and sometimes unreadable notes on the back of some contact sheets. Others are on the glassines. I can usually remember the camera and lens because I'd pretty much settled on what I like way back then and I'm still shooting with the same beat-to-hell Leica kit with the addition of the Bessa L and the 15mm Heliar.
The best advice I can give is to be at ease around people, be friendly rather than sneaky, strike up a conversation, get involved and act as if you're comfortable being with them. Work in close. Don't carry a ton of equipment. Wear a suit and tie when you're with others dressed that way. Otherwise a forgot-to-shave look with ratty looking faded jeans with a coffee stain or two might be better than clean new ones. Either way you can still strike up that conversation. Try it.
(That's wordy enough fo one post!) http:thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Last edited: