One kilometer of film is about 26320 frames is about 731 roles (36
exposure) - not counting trailer and leader. I ought to get a couple keepers
out of that.
Professionals are willing to burn a lot of film to get a shot, but tend to
favor just a few film types. Amateurs (artists) give great consideration to
the proper film but are stingy with their shots.
Regards,
Bob...
Give blood. Play hockey.
----- Original Message -----
From: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Kilometres of film (was Re: What's a professional?
> 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
-
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 .
