Hugo Gävert wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, F. Craig Callahan wrote:
>
> > To travel all that way and then try to save a few frames seems . . .
> > counterproductive.
>
> "Loss of photos" and "counterproductive"... not everybody think like that.
> You talk like a pro who went there to shoot, whereas you make the young
> couple sound like they were not even amateurs, but normal tourist who were
> there for different reasons than getting the best possible photo. Why do
> you expect the same devotion from them?
Actually, I was there as a tourist too. I'm hardly a pro, just a (middle-aged)
student. In my example, the fellow had as best I could tell taken exactly one photo
(which couldn't begin to cover all that was to be seen, even on the most superficial
level) of a rather extraordinary place. I thought the notion that taking more than one
photo would be a waste of film extraordinary also, in its way.
> I'm not a pro. I do not get paid for the photos I take.
Nor do I.
> Many times I'm really wondering what would be the
> best way to expose this scene - if film didn't cost, I could then just
> shoot with AEB every time.
That would hardly lead to better photos. To get better photos, we need to improve our
knowledge and our technique, and we do that by shooting film and working out problems,
figuring out why we didn't get what we expected, experimentation. Without practice we
don't get better (or even "good").
> Spending all my money on film instead of better equipment
> might have made me a better photographer in some way
Well yes--more experience, better technique, greater control over the equipment you do
have.
> We're not all millioners or professional photographers - not even
> everybody.
Not even me!
Cheers,
Craig
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
