Slow down - Danger??

[chipgreenberg]

Bill I was a still life shooter and still work that way. Almost everything is on a tripod. Careful framing, focus, etc.

There was a thread a bit back that I was too busy to jump in. The OP didn't like the results he was getting and asked if he could learn to produce better images.

Sounds a bit flippant, but I was going to say, Don't push the button unless you think it's going to be a good image. I edit before I shoot. If a scene looks interesting I previsualize it. If I'm still interested I look through the camera. By the time I commit to putting the camera on the tripod I almost always know I have something I like.

Chip

 

[Chuck Albertson]

My shooting habits were baked in when I was an impecunious student, and a roll of Tri-X (at $1.50 a roll) was a significant expense. With digital cameras, cost isn't a real consideration, but the time I would need to wade through a mass of similar photos is.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Well that didn't work. Brought the 4x5 camera and didn't shoot a frame with it. Had a Leica M4 and got so busy running around, whenever I got to take a picture for myself, it was just so much easier grabbing the M4. I feel like an addict sometimes, slowing down seems like detox.

Will try again next time. I do want to spend more time with those Sam Abell concepts, especially now that I read something similar coming from an old Mary Ellen Mark class.

Best,
-Tim

 

[airfrogusmc]

I never shoot FPS. I work hard at seeing in the moment and capturing what i see in the moment. I love the free form, jazz like shooting of working in the moment. With a lot of practice you can, as Bresson called it(developed instinct), develop an instinct. it takes a lot of time watching and sometimes waiting for the elements to come together and it usually happens in a fraction of a second. I find that extremely exciting, satisfying when I am successful, and very frustrating because it is so difficult all at the same time.

In college I worked with large format a lot and had 2 semesters of the zone system. Spent half of the first semester just doing the tests. I did really enjoy that as well and maybe after retiring and moving to some remote location in New Mexico I might buy a view camera (8X10 Deardorff) and do that again but for now in the area I live in the streets are my subject and finding the moment is my motivation.

 

[Ronald M]

The reason why I can't get along with digital photography: I walk around with my Fuji X-T3, take tons of photos, but when I get home I need to download and review hundreds & hundreds of files! What was supposed to be fun is real "assembly belt" work all of a sudden.

Better experience: I see an amazing landscape/tree ..., set up my Mamiya RZ67 on the trip wait for better light, wait longer for even better light, wait longer for the perfect light, and then I press the shutter once: CLUNK, followed by an eve louder THUMP when I advance the film. One frame only and I'm in photography heaven!

Two frames of 4x5 sheet film. Digital, shoot, chimp, probably one more even if exposure correct.
For some things, I now expose as much as I can before "blinkies" Then back off. Very few of my images require this. Also HDR. Do a city scene, then wait 45 minutes keeping people from tripping on your tripod. Then make a frame for the lights.
Pain in the ----, but results outstanding. Nobody knows it is HDR if you do it right.

 

[BillBingham2]

....
There is also a story, I think, about Ansel going up the mountain with only 12 exposures and only getting the shot he wanted with the 12th. I remember Szarkowski commenting, "He never made that mistake again." i.e. only bringing twelve sheets.
......

My impression of Ansel was that he was about lighting and clouds in addition to the main subject. I'm betting that a couple of the earlier ones were good too, but the last was the best.

While I try to get the best shot first, sometimes walking by a bit causes me to take a second or third shot. Often when I am editing about 80% of the time if I keep any, it's the first one. But that 20% are usually MUCH better.


B2 (;->

 

[BillBingham2]

Probably some 15 or so years ago I was at a professional portfolio review talking to an agent. There was a photographer taking pictures for who knows what and he was behind me. Rattattatt, rattatt, rattattattattatt... Finally I turned around and said "maybe take just one good one?" which cracked the agent up to no end. That sums up what I think...

It all depends on how you make photographs. Some people make them on purpose and some people make them on accident.

Are you implying that if you shoot a lot, you only get good photos by accident?

Read what I wrote. It is pretty clear.

You cracked a so-so joke at the expense of someone you will never meet. You had no idea of who he was shooting, could be a dog, a child, probably not a bunch of flowers. When you are anticipating an expression, a movement, a change that you believe will yield what you are looking for sometimes I use a lot more frames than I prefer. Given that I want the shot that I want, even with film, I'd err on the side of spending a bit more money.

B2 (;->

 

[icebear]

I never use continous mode ... other than by accident, darn switch on the MM .
And an all manual camera, manual aperture, manual focus slows you down anyway.
I see, frame, compose and typically take three shots from different angles, often the third one is the best.

I'm not a firefighter, I don't spray.
I'm not in church, so I don't pray either.:angel:

 

[Bill Clark]

This is with digital capture.

With wedding group photos I would make three or four of each just in case I need to move heads from one to another using Photoshop.

Otherwise with digital, same as film. I didn’t need nor liked to use the machine gun approach!

Smiles!