Hi Bob,
I should probably correct my statement earlier, "Hmm... Makes you think
that just about anybody could shoot film and get
results with those odds."
In the strictest sense I don't mean that. I actually was thinking more
about myself. If I had the ability to shoot 600 rolls of film in four
months... I'd see more good results than at present. Come to think of it
600 rolls in four months is only 180 frames a day on average. Unfortunately
that's about a $4000 investment in film.
I feel extremely happy if I get one good shot per 36 exposure roll. By
good, I mean one that really shines. Lots of times there's zero, as you
say.
Tom C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 2:01 AM
Subject: Re[2]: Kilometres of film (was Re: What's a professional?
> Hi Tom,
>
> > However, I thought the following was a little biased toward the
negative,
> > assuming, and somewhat condescending:
>
> sorry - it wasn't meant to be.
>
> >>
> >> It might be instructive, if you've never done it, to go out and shoot a
> >> lot of film on one subject - and see if you do get 'results'. Chances
> >> are that if you haven't worked this way, and/or don't understand why
> >> photographers work this way, that you won't get results.
> >>
>
> > I'm not at all sure of the above. If those photographers, were limited
to
> > 10 rolls, or 20 rolls whatever, their shooting style would likely be far
> > different. I tend to think I get results when not shooting a lot of
film,
> > more good results naturally if I shoot more. I also tend to think
(don't
> > want to sound pompous) that, if I shot 1000+ rolls of film a year I'd
have a
> > "busting at the seams portfolio" I'd be proud of (also be broke
probably).
>
> I don't think their shooting styles would necessarily be different. I
think they
> would simply shoot fewer subjects, rather than however many.
>
> For most people who take photographs, 10 rolls of film = 360 subjects
> and almost no good pictures. By good I mean of publication standard and
> which people outside the photographer's immediate circle might find
> interesting.
>
> Whereas more experienced photographers might take the attitude that 10
> rolls=10 subjects, at most. Again, referring to St. David Hurn (who is
> actually rather scornful of talk about quantity), he says maybe 1/2 a
> dozen frames/subject on average. He also says that for a 7-picture essay
> he would shoot 20-30 rolls of 36-exp. 35mm. Other people's mileage varies,
> of course.
>
> But the point of all this is that non-photographers, and inexperienced
> photographers, tend to think that professionals shoot a lot of film at
random.
> It is this misapprehension that leads to people thinking that anybody can
get
> good pictures if they shoot enough film.
>
> ---
>
> Bob
>
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
