Slow down - Danger??

[Bill Pierce]

When I got serious about photography one of the first cameras I bought was an old, beat up 8x10 view camera with, I think, an f/9.5 Wollensack lens. It cost me $30. I would take pictures of my friends. Later I moved up to a Toyo G with 3 modern lenses. The camera got used professionally on occasion, but most of the time I would still take pictures of my friends. Usually I made 2 exposures using both sides of the 8x10 film holder, not that the shots were very different, but it was a sort of insurance policy. Sometimes I only made one exposure.

I wonder how many sheets of film some of the great 8x10 photographers like Edward Weston or George Hurrell used in a day. How many 17x22 sheets does Carl Weese use today. Not a lot, I would guess. I suspect Ansel Adams’ count went up when he started using a Hasselblad and 35-mm photographers had an even higher count even before the thumb wind appeared.

Which brings us to digital and pushing the button whenever you like (or letting the camera push it 30 times a second). Weston’s famous, and beautiful, pepper photo had an exposure of over 4 hours. You could say his work had to be contemplative, that he framed a good image, fine tuned that image and then pressed the button. He seems to have done that with both his pictures of peppers and people and everything in between. Today I look at work done with modern digital cameras, including my own, and think, even after that burst of frames has been edited down to just the best one, might it be even better if we just slowed down and spent more time looking and less time pushing the button.

Your thoughts and, as always, especially the thoughts of those who think I have totally lost it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm only capable of taking it as the moment. I'm incapable of taking pictures sequentially.
Only for gear I have to sell.
Friends, street, landscapes.. if I'm trying to take several frames - crapshoot.
I prefer to photograph not peppers, but something which is the moment I feel.
With this size of the film, been digital is irrelevant.
To get where I took about 200K frames digitally. It was learning of exposure and how to photograph which took time and re taking it many times. I used manual mode to learn it all.
Because of it, I now know which automatic mode to present. Or S16 if film.

 

[Timmyjoe]

"Spray and Pray Baby, Spray and Pray"

30 frames per second is almost like shooting a 16mm movie, just pick the best frame.

I think you're just getting old Bill. 😉

I know as I'm getting older I'm getting more joy out of shooting slower. Am currently packing for a story about 300 miles from home, and am angling to pack the "new to me" 4x5 camera for the one day I'll have when I don't owe anyone images.

Also just watched Sam Abell's lecture from B&H of a few years ago, and his philosophy of "Compose, and Wait". Hoping to have some fun with that in the next few days.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Out to Lunch]

Sure, and vice versa. Have a look at Don McCullin raving about the instantaneous gratification when using his his Canon EOS 5D's while at work in Calcutta. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LALtLUjSeJs

 

[Bob Michaels]

................. as always, especially the thoughts of those who think I have totally lost it.

Bill, with all due respect, the phrase "jump the shark" comes to mind.

 

[benlees]

When there is reason to go slow, I go slow. When there is a reason to go fast, I ignore it. When there is a reason I can't go at my own pace, I sell it. Looking at you, Foveon.🙄

 

[Dogman]

I don't take a lot of pictures of the same subject. Usually no more than 3 or 4 frames (if "frames" is the correct word for digital). I spend a lot of time looking and then just fractions of a second shooting.

But sometimes I'll set the damn thing on 8 fps and blast away. Usually when I'm shooting from the hip or trying to catch something in action. Depends.

 

[kshapero]

I usually shoot with a meterless Nikon F, so I could not shoot that fast even if I wanted to.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Today I look at work done with modern digital cameras, including my own, and think, even after that burst of frames has been edited down to just the best one, might it be even better if we just slowed down and spent more time looking and less time pushing the button.

The above should be obvious, but the fact you have to ask suggests it isn’t.

It’s obviously possible to get a good photograph, even a great photograph by virtue of luck alone, just accidentally being in the right place at the right time, or being lucky with burst mode. That good photograph sometimes convinces people that they are good photographers, when they are not good photographers at all.

But, whatever makes someone happy, that’s worth something, to them at least.

 

[giganova]

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! 😀

 

[shimokita]

I was just looking at a photo from my niece... the concept is much different from what I would take, and forget about what my dad photographed in the 30s-40s. Times change, our perception of why, what, how we photography continually morphs. The shelf life of an image has shrunk due to sheer volumes. Still no excuse for not taking the best photograph that you can or maybe that's outdated as well.

It might be genre specific, but who are the most interesting working photographers today?

 

[giganova]

It might be genre specific, but who are the most interesting working photographers today?

For me: Sally Mann's wet plate collodium photography.

 

[olifaunt]

With a few exceptions, I don’t take multiple shots of the same subject anymore. There will always be more subjects after all, and my photography isn’t about subjects, but rather about capturing (often fleeting) visual impressions that have some special drama, composition, and light.

So for the type of photography I like doing, the first shot is almost always the best. Changing angles, distance, etc., will invariably ruin the spontaneity and composition of the image that caught my eye in the first place, so I might as well just take the first picture and stop.

 

[lynnb]

When I see a good picture, I take it..

As you know Bill some subjects lend themselves to a contemplative approach and some require quick reflexes on the shutter button. Sometimes you don't know when peak action is going to happen (my personal experience photographing waves; or my daughter's soccer matches, where fractions of a second often separated a good from a great picture). So, it depends..

But generally speaking, one of the reasons I went back to mostly shooting film (apart from the look of film, which I really like) is that it forces more shooting discipline. That's been a good thing for me as I get a much higher proportion of keepers with film.

 

[LCSmith]

If I remember correctly, Weston used the extra-long exposure on the pepper photograph because he actually fashioned a special "pin-hole" kind of aperture for his camera in order to get the whole thing in focus.

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.

In any human endeavor I think it is true that, on a personal level, the more you put into it the more you get out of it. For some people, that is spending hours with editing software. For others, it is setting up the camera and waiting for the light to be just right. What matters, I think, is not so much the format but the earnestness of the endeavor.

 

[farlymac]

I kind of shoot my digital cameras like my film ones. Take the photo, and trust the camera has recorded it as I saw it through the viewfinder. I don't bother to chimp except to see if I missed an angle I was planning on getting.


Drive use is quite sporadic, but I'm glad it's there when I need it. Most of my film cameras that can take a drive I made sure to equip with one.


PF

 

[Michael Markey]

When there is reason to go slow, I go slow. When there is a reason to go fast, I ignore it. When there is a reason I can't go at my own pace, I sell it. Looking at you, Foveon.🙄

As long as the camera allows me to dictate and vary my own pace as and when I require I`m happy.
I rarely use burst even when doing action shots (unless I want a sequence) but if I choose to I want a camera that will allow me to do so.
It`s all about options for me.

 

[Rob-F]

I've never used burst. And as far as I'm concerned, all those modes on digital cameras--"scene" mode, "face" mode, etc. are just pointless clutter on the dial. I either use aperture priority, or manual shutter speed. I like my M9 and Fuji X100 for their film-like shutter speed dials with only the speeds plus "A" for aperture priority. I don't use auto-bracketing, either. It's too much to think about.

I take a second shot when I think the first one may not have good enough. Later, I sometimes can't see the difference between the two. It usually happens when I grabbed the first shot impulsively, and want to make sure I'm putting enough care into it, whether film or digital. More usually, a second or third shot will be from a different camera angle, or framed differently, as I continue to move around and explore. I wind up with too many shots, because I find it hard to throw away or delete the extras. I'm often not confident about which one is "best." Unless, of course, one is obviously inferior to the others.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

I've never used burst. And as far as I'm concerned, all those modes on digital cameras--"scene" mode, "face" mode, etc. are just pointless clutter on the dial. I either use aperture priority, or manual shutter speed. I like my M9 and Fuji X100 for their film-like shutter speed dials with only the speeds plus "A" for aperture priority. I don't use auto-bracketing, either. It's too much to think about.

I take a second shot when I think the first one may not have good enough. Later, I sometimes can't see the difference between the two. It usually happens when I grabbed the first shot impulsively, and want to make sure I'm putting enough care into it, whether film or digital. More usually, a second or third shot will be from a different camera angle, or framed differently, as I continue to move around and explore. I wind up with too many shots, because I find it hard to throw away or delete the extras. I'm often not confident about which one is "best." Unless, of course, one is obviously inferior to the others.

Perfect! Well said.

Mike

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I stopped using my last DSLR, the otherwise wondrous D700, after a day of shooting vintage car sports, and with over 600 images I winnowed it down to about 5 I was happy with. It struck me that all I was doing was pressing the shutter and spraying, there being nothing I was adding to the AF and the continuous firing.

Using a film rangefinder or TLR (my return to film was with a Rolleicord) did slow me down - I'm not sure slowing down to master the controls and take exposure readings of itself made me better, but it was trying to get better images because they took so much effort.

I have made a partial return to digital since with the Sony A7s (I use it for macro where the ability to check focus etc matters a lot more) and with the Fuji XT30, but I try to use them as film cameras with the bonus of being able to chimp.