Street shooting and film wastage.

Al, I feel compelled to second sonofdanang's comments above. I'll avoid getting all sappy but did want you to know that I, too, appreciate your posts and perspectives shared on this forum.

Best,
Randy
 
Dave seems to be stretched of money to shoot at will, I am not sure. Certainly I am. Additionally I am stretched of time to process.

Once upon a time I thought that digital gadgetery was money saving only for wedding photogs. I was so wrong.

I remind for the second time today, that prices for people outside the US are measurably higher. And even then I have nothing at all against the beloved wet processing, on the contrary.

But for the folk who like me is on a budget, I will recommend to start translating the price of digis into film costs and time.

Now, there is the question of wether frame amounts vs selective shooting, what is better. Let me tell you I have processed in Jerusalem films of high intl' photogs, whose film is either provideded for free or their processing costs covered by others. These guys used to shoot a single image up to 18 times. Not from a different angle, but the same, 18 times.

In my opinion if you were able to shoot the 18 times, but from slight different angles - then you would sharpen your photographic vision and experience. For the guy on a budget this is an obstacle if he shoots film.

Anyway, we all know that for example those National Geographic photogs on assignment, did and do shoot thousand and thousand of frames for only some 5 being published. This is how it works, pro photography in every genre. Not only by inspiration but by transpiration too.

Now ask me if I feel I have became a dumb photog for using digital. Well, at the end account the moment comes in which you have to select the images you will post, the images that will represent you. So even if one was to click too much for it being free of charge, also in digital the moment comes in which you will have to face yourself and your work.

I am aware this is a touchy issue, friends, but kindly spare a place under the sky for those who cannot shoot film in the quantities others can afford.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
you need to 'waste' film to become better at not wasting film. You need to take duff shots with a few good ones to be able to figure out how to get more of the better and less of the worse. Some; however, think it down to chance and don't perhaps have a feel for street photography and as a result shoot huge numbers of negs with no particular thought behind it: shots of people walking about and stuff. Thats a shame, because street photography is hugely demanding and can require very subtle thinking, which is why so few people do it well and many more wish they could be better at it. Its not just about standing about for hours shooting thousands of frames of people walking about. Even tho Gary Winogrands shooting was prolific to say the least, he put himself in particular environments and situations and knew what excited him. I get the impression with some people is that they are not excited by what they are seeing. Instead they just shoot lots of frames of stuff without being engaged. This links back to the thread about 'passion'. You have to be getting something out of it, and not the act of shooting, but what you are seeing, to have any hope that someone viewing your print will too.
 
ruben said:
Dave seems to be streched of money. I am too. Additionally I am stretched of time to process.

Once upon a time I thought that digital gadgetery was money saving only for wedding photogs. I was so wrong.

I remind for the second time today, that prices for people outside the US are measurably higher. And even then I have nothing at all against the beloved wet processing, on the contrary.

But for the folk who like me is on a budget, I will recommend to start translating the price of digis into film costs and time.

I am aware this is a touchy issue, friends, but kindly spare a place under the sky for those who cannot shoot film in the quantities others can.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...
Ruben, I sometimes take issue with your posts ( but not in a malicious way! ) - but not this time!, although now in retirement years, I would not really describe myself as stretched for money, and I think that given the amount of shooting I do these days, it could all be achieved on film without hardship. The fact is - that when I compare my prints and files, side-by-side the technical quality is such, that it just makes sense to mainly proceed at no cost other than paper and ink!
Cheers, Dave.
 
Hi Dave,
You are right, kindly excuss me and see my retouched post.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Digital has certainly changed the way poeple are taking pictures. Many of my relatives/friends using digital camera come back from a day of shooting with about 1000 shots (one thousand !); that they immediatly download on their hard drives and never watch again...
I tend not to waste film or anything else.
Having almost switched back to analog now, I like to print a maximum of my negs and show them around, and I do indeed appreciate to watch them this way much more than on a computer screen.
BTW, I am happy that all the negs and slides as old as 1978 look today as good as they were before. That's more than 30 years and I do question myself on how many 30 years old digital files will remain in homes or private hands in the future.
 
I'm sure that a lot of digital files will be aound in 30 years. Will anybody even know what they are, those strange little silvery discs? They sure don't have music on them, but you only discover that after Grandpa remembers that cousin Bert in Manitoba still has a CD player because he still prefers the sound of digital rock music. The new vinyl albums seem so strange with their nice smooth sound.

Short of sending your discs to a lab specializing in recovering digital files how will you access them. How will you even know that a generation's worth of family pictures is encoded on that silvery disc? How "archival"? It doesn't much matter if nobody knows what's there and is unlikely to find out.
 
notturtle said:
you need to 'waste' film to become better at not wasting film. You need to take duff shots with a few good ones to be able to figure out how to get more of the better and less of the worse. Some; however, think it down to chance and don't perhaps have a feel for street photography and as a result shoot huge numbers of negs with no particular thought behind it: shots of people walking about and stuff. Thats a shame, because street photography is hugely demanding and can require very subtle thinking, which is why so few people do it well and many more wish they could be better at it. Its not just about standing about for hours shooting thousands of frames of people walking about. Even tho Gary Winogrands shooting was prolific to say the least, he put himself in particular environments and situations and knew what excited him. I get the impression with some people is that they are not excited by what they are seeing. Instead they just shoot lots of frames of stuff without being engaged. This links back to the thread about 'passion'. You have to be getting something out of it, and not the act of shooting, but what you are seeing, to have any hope that someone viewing your print will too.
Click to expand...
Some good and relevant observations - but my personal point of view is :- without claiming any pictorial genius - over the last forty five plus years I have had my share of paydays and comissions, in a modest way, from photography, and have served my time of "wasting film, to learn not to waste film". Having sampled most of them, in varying degrees, I do understand the complexities of the different aspects of the hobby/profession. Interesting comments, on this thread - and unexpected at the start, but my summary is simply that having reached an age where time is more precious than ever, I prefer to do things the easy way - especially if the quality of my output is not diminished!, and the cost greatly reduced!
Cheers, Dave.
 
dmr said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

Oh god, here comes another poll: how many "keepers" per roll?

I agree, if I get one or two out of my usual 12-24 shots per roll, I'm happy.
 
Dave Wilkinson said:
I think most of them will go to the skip, when I'm gone!.
Click to expand...

And that's fine, since it's the experience that counts for so much. Getting any lasting art out of the endeavor is gravy, as far as I'm concerned. Besides, what matters in thousands/millions/billions of years?
 
novum said:
And that's fine, since it's the experience that counts for so much. Getting any lasting art out of the endeavor is gravy, as far as I'm concerned. Besides, what matters in thousands/millions/billions of years?
Click to expand...

Amen brother.
[FONT=&quot]Wasted film? Perhaps some snaps more than others, that’s for you to decide. Place what importance you will on the pics that you will; its temporal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ultimately in the end, whether HCB, Frank, Kouldelka, Kaplan or Mattock, it’s all just so much refuse. Dust to dust. Now go out and ‘waste’ some film. :D[/FONT]
 
DougFord said:
Amen brother.
[FONT=&quot]Wasted film? Perhaps some snaps more than others, that’s for you to decide. Place what importance you will on the pics that you will; its temporal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ultimately in the end, whether HCB, Frank, Kouldelka, Kaplan or Mattock, it’s all just so much refuse. Dust to dust. Now go out and ‘waste’ some film. :D[/FONT]
Click to expand...
NAH!.....I'll go out and waste some 'electricity' tomorrow! and sit and have a couple of beers with the film money!- good health!:D
 
Waisting film

Waisting film

In order to "waist" film you need a TLR or at least an SLR with a "waist" level finder. I myself waste plenty of film with all of my various cameras before I get a single good shot.
 
I have to admit that as a self-confessed snapper,with no pretensions towards talent,but something of an obsession with old cameras,these days my achievment of personally satisfactory results is very heavily in favour of my little digicam.:eek:

I'm also at retirement age,and find myself looking back a little more than perhaps I should in lots of ways;),so perhaps this is also a good reason to move forward--for me at least.
Personal views only.

Brian.
 
I was just going through some 120 contact sheets. I scanned one of the images and posted it at http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com I was shooting with my Minolta Autocord. I was maybe a dozen feet away from the woman and exposed three frames. There were a few other interesting shots of other subjects on the same 12 exposure roll. I probably made three frames of this one because the pigeons refused to do what I said. I think we ALL shoot too much these days.
 
KenR said:
In order to "waist" film you need a TLR or at least an SLR with a "waist" level finder. I myself waste plenty of film with all of my various cameras before I get a single good shot.
Click to expand...
Well.....I did'nt like to mention it - as I thought it might be an accepted way of spelling in certain parts of the world :p
 
goodtimes said:
Many of my relatives/friends using digital camera come back from a day of shooting with about 1000 shots (one thousand !); that they immediatly download on their hard drives and never watch again....
Click to expand...
. . .you forgot to add the step that they post every one of their 1,000 shots on their Flickr site and imagine that others will be interested seeing them.:) (not a pitfall just of digi shooters.)
To me, "waste" is about going through the effort of taking an occasional interesting shot and then not doing one's homework to edit and present well.
 
What a good comments! I agree that waste is not shooting a lot, but uploading anything, instead of selecting and editing. As for storage, I think digital images will live longer than silvered discs if owner will store them on storage servers, like Google and those which have yet to appear.

My colleague rejects film as "he can't see what came out". That's because you shoot one or two rolls a year, I replied. So there certainly is "waste", either film or card space. Though then we can count walking as waste too, because we don't need walking itself, we just need to get from point A to point B - something not happening under normal circumstances. And when it happens, it indicates I'm either sleeping in car/bus, or drunk or sick to level I don't remember view out of window. Not the best way to travel. So let's think about "waste" as part of journey, let's have a bit of zen :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom