jfretless
Established
sonofdanang,
is there a connection to Da Nang, Vietnam?
john
is there a connection to Da Nang, Vietnam?
john
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!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
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!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.
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. 🙂
I think most of them will go to the skip, when I'm gone!.
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?
NAH!.....I'll go out and waste some 'electricity' tomorrow! and sit and have a couple of beers with the film money!- good health!😀Amen brother.
[FONT="]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="]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. 😀[/FONT]
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 😛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.
. . .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.)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....