We all suck at photo taking most of the time...

Pedro,
Congratulations. And get that Lynx 14 in good shape. You are going to want an RF with that fast lens. I have Nikki's college fund stashed out of camera trading over the years. I can shoot all the film I want.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Pedro,
Congratulations. And get that Lynx 14 in good shape. You are going to want an RF with that fast lens. I have Nikki's college fund stashed out of camera trading over the years. I can shoot all the film I want.
Click to expand...

Tks Brian.
I beleive when you talk about college fund, you're talking about the University found. Well, here in Portugal the problem with good universities is not the cost (as at todays standards) but the grades to get in, since the best universities are from the state, and a year costs today less than $1000. Maybe this changes in the next 18 years ... i dont know ...
The Lynx 14, well, my first shots as a baby where took with this camera and you can bet that it will be in good shape when the moment comes 😉
 
My RF's are the camera of choice for me but I think that most of my pics are pretty bad. There are some that I let out into the world but the majority are hidden away under lock and key.
 
MacDaddy said:
...at least, according to Mike Johnston! See his latest Sunday Morning Photographer column here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-sept4-05.shtml (Moderators, forgive me if this is a faux paus!)
His premise (and I agree with it) is that MOST of our shots stink, but its not the equipment's fault—it's ours! And he goes on to state that even the legendary ones stank most of the time. Quite an interesting read and— at least for me— an encouraging one!
Comments? Flaming arrows? Cries for my hide to be tarred and feathered and run out of town? Drop in and fire away! i'd like to hear what some of you whose photos fill me with awe and hope someday I can be 1/2 as good think about his observations.
Click to expand...

Just like 'bad weather' is necessary to appreciate 'good weather', bad pics are necessary to appreciate good ones.

Generally, I say to myself, "one good pic on the roll, justyifies the roll". But of course, some of the 'bad' ones turn out to be good at some later date. This a great argument for film over digital in that, at for me, all negsare proofsheeted and filed so that into the future, they accessable. With digital, it is 'usual' to delete the 'bad' ones. They will never 'turn good' later on!

'Good' and 'bad' are very elastic terms and can be miseading. Also, for me they interchange from day to day. How frustarating is that?? :bang:
 
MacDaddy said:
MOST of our shots stink, but its not the equipment's fault—it's ours! And he goes on to state that even the legendary ones stank most of the time.
Click to expand...

It's an eternal observation, from the ancient Greeks' "Even Homer nods" to the modern Sturgeon's Law "90 percent of everything is garbage."
 
I get find that maybe one in ten rolls I can't find any frame that I'm happy with. I don't believe in the idea that with the passage of time you'll realize that there are good images on the roll that you didn't find a good frame. A good image will jump out at you the first time you see it.
 
BTW, if you are not dissatisfied with some images on a roll, is doesn't mean that you have been successful, it means means that you are not trying new things, not pushing the envelope and learning/evolving. You learn from your mistakes, not your successes.
 
FrankS said:
I get find that maybe one in ten rolls I can't find any frame that I'm happy with. I don't believe in the idea that with the passage of time you'll realize that there are good images on the roll that you didn't find a good frame. A good image will jump out at you the first time you see it.
Click to expand...

Frank,

I respect your POV, but don't entirely agree. On more than one occasion, I have rejected some images, only to have another photographer see them and extol the virtue of the image. I have then gone on to make 'exhibition' prints of them.

I explain that by observing that I was probably looking for 'something different' when shooting and editing and therefore could not see the 'gem' hiding under a different 'label'. Also, I am not a good editor and habitually miss 'good shots' on the roll!

" You learn from your mistakes, not your successes. "

Frank, I believe it is possible to learn from both. I certainly try to.
 
I agree with Frank.. either it's there or it's not.. it's possible with the passage of time that you might see new things in the same image, but generally not.. your first instinct about a good photo versus a 'not good' one is usually right.. only your perception changes with time, not the photo itself
 
I would modify a statement I made to this: I learn MORE from my mistakes than from my successes.

I still think that you can't miss a great image on first view, though. If you do, it's just not a great image.
 
my second wife was a pretty good shooter but a hell of an editor.

after a disappointing time in the darkroom i would exit and complain bitterly about my lack of talent.
she would calmly take my contact sheet and study it for a few minutes, make a few circles and hand me the sheet back, with instructions to 'try these'.

i would return to the darkroom convinced she was wrong, there was nothing good to be found. more times than not, after playing with the neg, i would find a good photo under the lights of my enlarger.

sometimes the difference between a good shooter and a poor shooter is the quality of the editor.

joe
 
jeepers !!! i have to echo most sentiments here...i am delighted with 1 out 12 on a rollfilm...i
think my average may go up when using 35mm - only because i am exposing more film - and then it varies...hmm, still there seems to be no "bad" grandbaby photos : )
_________________
kenneth
mamiya6 + 6mf, rolleiflex slx + 6002, FSU Skolnik + Estafeta,contax g2,holgaroid...
_____________
"patience and shuffle the cards" miguel cervantes
 
FrankS said:
I would modify a statement I made to this: I learn MORE from my mistakes than from my successes.

I still think that you can't miss a great image on first view, though. If you do, it's just not a great image.
Click to expand...


I think we are really going to agree when all is said and done! :angel:
 
I agree with hoot -- I think it really depends on your shooting style. If you only take a shot when you have a perfectly visualized photograph, then your eye is the only limiting factor. If you are the type of photographer who blows through a lot of film then more of your images are probably going to suck than someone who is very selective.

It also depends on your subject matter. Doing something like street photography usually requires a lot more film to produce "the shot" then someone who shoots landscapes on 8x10 film.
 
Some of my rolls have several keepers, but many have none. I have no idea what it is on the average. I tend to agree with this Adams quote: "I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -- meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching -- there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster."

Richard
 
I would also add that for me, it's mostly the "mood" that counts.
Since I've been rather busy with work for some time now, I did not shoot much, apart from a few snaps of family occasions.
There were some potential keepers from a trip to the island of Hvar, but those were ruined by use of non-original polarizer (vignetting!) 🙁

Still, I find that I get most keepers when I'm in a proper "shooting mood" - meaning I'm relaxed and not burdened by mundane things like work, chores to do, etc...
If I have to "squeeze" shome shots in between other things I need to do, those almost never turn out to be any good.

So, for me it's not the equipment (no "magic bullet"!), but the state of mind that matters most. It's almost a kind of zen thing... When I'm relaxed and "attuned" to my surroundings, I get keepers from totally mundane things and scenes, using whatever camera is at hand (those DO tend to be Leicas, however 🙂).

OTOH, you can put me in a middle of a most exciting and photogenic situation, and the resulting shots will be garbage if I'm not "in the mood"....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Looking at Pictures the Psychology of Images ... the Director's Cut
Replies
10
Views
3K
Sparrow
S
scottwallick
  • Poll Poll
The great filter poll of 2010: UV/NC with vs. without
2
Replies
31
Views
577
mfunnell
M
Imagestreet
Forget the cameras - what are your working methods?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
TPPhotog
T
Back
Top Bottom