ederek
Well-known
Doug, thanks for sharing. Your compositions are fantastic.
It's interesting how the film->digital switch has a full spectrum; from not altering behavior at all, to a relatively radical shift to the other side such as ampguy shared with the Grand Palouse wheatfield compositions. All perfectly valid approaches 🙂
I'd suggest there is a much broader distribution in click-rate in the digital population than in the film user population, and that total clicks (the area under the curve), is probably significantly larger for the digital population (not that some may shoot fewer digital than film, especially if it leaves one feeling less inspired).
Maybe as folks share their own patterns here, the degree to which this is the case will emerge...
I do a lot of "playing" and experimenting with digital that I'd never dream of doing w/ film. It may not be a great approach, but I wouldn't say I "just shoot the same picture again and again, for no better reason than because can." (that was one of Rogers' definitions of Overshooting in the Sooner of later thread.
Not trying to judge / debate a reasonable click-rate here (refer to Rogers thread for that), but rather query the spectrum that is out there. Do we really have a sense of how many digital images are being captured?? At least with film there were film production and sales numbers, lab development revenues and other indicators of analog click-rate. How can we estimate this with digital without sharing? Mine EXIF data from Flickr?
In just over a year, I shot 15 rolls with the M4. That was quite a bit less than the year prior when first learning to handle a rangefinder.
BenZ - perhaps amguy was just being provocative to elicit responses 🙄 Do you shoot a digital-M, and if so did you shoot film previously or concurrently today?
ruslan - good data point - any issues at all over that time? Any notion of needing a tuneup (a "Digital CLA") at some point?
It's interesting how the film->digital switch has a full spectrum; from not altering behavior at all, to a relatively radical shift to the other side such as ampguy shared with the Grand Palouse wheatfield compositions. All perfectly valid approaches 🙂
I'd suggest there is a much broader distribution in click-rate in the digital population than in the film user population, and that total clicks (the area under the curve), is probably significantly larger for the digital population (not that some may shoot fewer digital than film, especially if it leaves one feeling less inspired).
Maybe as folks share their own patterns here, the degree to which this is the case will emerge...
I do a lot of "playing" and experimenting with digital that I'd never dream of doing w/ film. It may not be a great approach, but I wouldn't say I "just shoot the same picture again and again, for no better reason than because can." (that was one of Rogers' definitions of Overshooting in the Sooner of later thread.
Not trying to judge / debate a reasonable click-rate here (refer to Rogers thread for that), but rather query the spectrum that is out there. Do we really have a sense of how many digital images are being captured?? At least with film there were film production and sales numbers, lab development revenues and other indicators of analog click-rate. How can we estimate this with digital without sharing? Mine EXIF data from Flickr?
In just over a year, I shot 15 rolls with the M4. That was quite a bit less than the year prior when first learning to handle a rangefinder.
BenZ - perhaps amguy was just being provocative to elicit responses 🙄 Do you shoot a digital-M, and if so did you shoot film previously or concurrently today?
ruslan - good data point - any issues at all over that time? Any notion of needing a tuneup (a "Digital CLA") at some point?
