Street shooting and film wastage.

[miissaka]

As stated in my first post at the begining of this thread :- just a few early morning musings, and personal observations - no big statements, or leading questions.
...

This was a good thread! Very interesting discussion.

This week I picked up Bill Jay's and David Hurn's 'On Being A Photographer' from my bookshelf for re-reading. (It is a great book. I highly recommend it.) There was this interesting note about film usage. I quote it here though it'd suite the "keepers per roll"-poll as well:

As a general guide I would guess that for a seven-picture essay I would shoot 20 to 30 rolls of 36-exposure 35mm film. A single, exhibition-quality image probably occurs for every 100 films.

Out of context that sounds a bit lot but they are discussing picture essays. The idea is that you must select a topic which know and care about and try to tell a story. One must plan what he tries to say and explore the subject. Can you be sure that you got the best light, viewpoint, moment that tells the story the way you want? In practice I think translates to a lot of frames and small number of subjects.

No, I don't take pictures that way. On a very few occasions I have taken a lot of frames. That has usually produced a frame or two that I like. However, the motive has been a difficult situation where I don't trust either the camera or myself. I wanted to make sure that I get something...

I don't want to spend (too much) money on film so I buy it in bulk rolls and sales. You can get 30,5 meter roll of Maco or Rollei films for 30 euros plus shipping. One roll yields roughly 20 36-exposure rolls.

Mikko

 

[JoeV]

There is some quote by someone semi-famous in photography who said (I'm badly paraphrasing) that you have to shoot 10,000 images to learn to be a good photographer. In that case, there are no "wasted shots," since each one is (hopefully) adding to your personal arsenal of skills, or at least teaching you what NOT to do!

I think this philosophy works as long as we ensure that the feedback loop (between our original intention and what we ended up with) is not severed, and that we purposely review every frame, even our failed shots, to gain further understanding.

~Joe

 

[vidgamer]

When I shot film in the past, I had less disposable income, so I was pretty frugal with the film. Often, rolls would last a long time, but I wasn't that interested in photography at first. It was more of a means to an end; on vacation, I'd take a lot of photos. On one trip to Europe, I thought I took plenty of rolls, but not even! I had to buy several more! I probably could have taken more shots. I was being careful to not waste too many, but as you realize that there's potential, you want to take more.

When I switched to digital, I had to un-learn that saving habit. I began taking more photos. Even so, I sometimes still had to conserve, due to the limit of the memory cards of the time. One trip, I had to resort to using higher compression to squeeze more photos in! I took the equivalent of 17 24-exposure rolls. On my European trip, I can't remember how many I had, but it was probably at least a dozen.

But now, finally, I've got plenty of room on my memory cards, and can just snap away. I still can't bring myself to shoot everything and machine-gun style.

Coming back to film, I'm back into conservation mode! It helps to be motivated to finish a roll so you can see if your camera's any good or not. ;-) Even so, I've probably gone over 2 weeks and can't find an excuse to snap a photo. Maybe soon.

 

[ElectroWNED]

since I buy bulk film for cheap, and it only costs about $2 USD to have film developed and scanned at a big-box store, I can afford to shoot pretty much anything I desire 🙂

 

[ElectroWNED]

Keith...I saw that movie many years ago and have explained to people what "Auggie" did every day as his ritual...
I saw what he did as brilliant...now if he only shot one roll like this not much would have come of it...but shooting as long as he did...again I call it brilliant...


If one learns anything when shoot then nothing has been wasted...

Now I'm intrigued; what did he do?

 

[NDAv]

I certainly agree: No judgments; no how (especially regarding how other people spend their money)

However, I do look for threads in which photographers are willing to engage in describing why they do what they do. Otherwise, what's the point of my looking at another view of the G.Canyon or another anonymous sullen teenager talking on a cellphone while smoking a cigarette on a subway?

So now I want to see some photos you select to share; and I want to know why you took and selected those shots. If I don't see and understand, then the film is wasted (at least on me.)

Isn't a picture already worth a thousand words?

I think at the very least a series of photos should be able to stand on their own. If they can't, then maybe they are not good enough photos.

A single photo presented alone might warrant a caption, maybe. But a detailed explanation? I don't think so.

 

[MartinL]

Isn't a picture already worth a thousand words?
Depends on the pictures; depends on the words. In this photo forum thousands of words expended without telling why the photog took the shot, liked the shot, or how the shot fits in with his/her oeuvre. Without inflating (or dissing) the work of the mostly amateurs here, this kind of language-based background adds value in much the same way as a gallery or museum adds value when it identifies artists, styles, etc.

I think at the very least a series of photos should be able to stand on their own. If they can't, then maybe they are not good enough photos.
Again, think about the last time you were in a gallery. Were you not interested in the photog's bio, what brought her to take this series? Think here as a visual consumer rather than the picture taker: don't you learn more, appreciate more when you are given more to work with? Do catalogs mean that the photos were't good enough to include without the words?

A single photo presented alone might warrant a caption, maybe. But a detailed explanation? I don't think so.
Captions are a much under-discussed dimension--even skill. IMO, they are troublesome if they try to go beyond a simple identifier ("Summer, 1942" "Sylvia.") Most annoying is when the photog tries for cleverness, irony, or instruction ("my graceful bulldog," "an interesting pattern.")

"Detailed explanation." I agree here. I'm usually not interested in length unless I'm already won over by my immediate response, artist's reputation, etc. Past a certain point, the photo becomes an illustration for the text, rather than the text serving the photo.

 

[Al Kaplan]

"Standing alone"? An interesting conundrum. For decades now both my business card and letterhead have had the line "Photographic Illustration" immediately below my name. Some of my photographs are "pretty pictures" while others are frankly mediocre. For most publication purposes the editor is looking for a photographer who can consistantly produce a useable photo relating to the subject at hand. "Useable" on a consistant basis is more important to an editor than "eye grabbing", "fantastic", etc., and where possible there should be a decent enough selection of images so the editor or art director has a choice of horizontal or vertical compositions. Perhaps there should be a choice of the subject looking right, left, or straight into the camera, or maybe only facing the camera with no eye contact.

I've worked with writers and editors where we were all operating on the same wave length, and it also helps if there's good rapport with the subject. In other situations you have to come to grips with the reality that things just ain't gonna happen, so you do the best you can with the cards that were dealt you and try for the "useable".

 

[madmulsul]

Thanks

Thanks

I have read your topic. What's useful innformation for my job.
I do agree with you. Those are the most effective way
have a blessed day

 

[250swb]

I take it from the original post, and many of the subsequent posts that a 'waste' frame of film, or space on the CF card, is one that isn't a satisfying photograph? Well that leads me to think that those people are either a greater genius than Robert Frank or Garry Winogrand, or they aren't trying hard enough.

Look at any contact sheet from say Garry Winogrand or Robert Frank (but it could also be Bresson, or even Ansel Adams etc )and you'll see that the photographs they choose as representative of their vision do not appear fully formed out of thin air. The subject matter does not form up in an orderly queue to be photographed, but the photographer has to work at creating order in the world by exposing multiple frames that refines the idea until it works, or doesn't work. I fully endorse the David Hurn comment that for a lifes work an exhibition print will occur every 100 rolls of film.

It obviously isn't without foundation the philistine notion that photography is easy (held by non-photographers or other artists) if photographers themselves are so unwilling to work the subject until it is the best it can be rather than the cheapest it can be.

Steve