Shel, What I said related to the three professional outdoor/nature photographers I know personally. These guys shoot slide film exclusively (or use to, one has gone totally over to digital & the other two are somewhere between all film & all digital). When I have shot with them they are very measured in what they will shoot. They all work the hell out of a subject/composition and when back at the editing light table they will mostly toss those images that aren't exactly what they want. In some cases they are so sure of what they are shooting they will shoot many "in - camera duplicates" (same settings of the same composition) to cover the needs they believe they will have for a specific image.
I never said they didn't take unusable images. Their definition of unusable is different than yours or mine. I never said they had 100% hit rate. They make their living doing this & even with free film they don't waste their time or energy if they don't have to. These guys are way beyond "shooting to learn", not to say they don't have to stop & ponder a particular photographic situation, they have been there before. The amount of shooting these guys do almost takes the fun out of it for me. Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Who has an istDS? > So, are you saying that these pros either used every shot on a roll of film > or that, if there were some they'd not use, they were cut out of the > negative strips, deleted from contact sheets, and tossed, never to be seen > again? I can just imagine a photographer having shot a roll 220 film going > through the negs or transparencies and deciding that this or that frame was > not going to work, getting out a pair of scissors, cutting out that frame > or two, and tossing it. Sorry, I don't buy it. And I don't buy the idea > that every shot a photographer makes is usable immediately, and if it's not > it then has no value to the photographer. No one has a 100% hit rate, I > don't care how good a photog they may be. Even if you're a perfect > photographer, always getting perfect framing, perfect light, and perfect > exposures, there's always something that can ruin a shot or make one less > desirable or marketable than another. > > Shooting to "learn" is sometimes a different situation, but unless the > results are saved, the learning process is truncated. How can the photog > go back and compare the result from the photos made this month with the > ones made a month or two earlier and see where and how improvement has been > accomplished, if at all. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Date: 12/29/2004 12:24:27 PM > > Subject: Re: Who has an istDS? > > > > On 12/29, Shel caused the following to appear on my CRT - > > >"No, pros didn't throw away the bad ones. They were saved on contact > > sheets > > > and negatives, and became valuable tools in both the editing process and > > > helping the photographer understand the shooting process." > > > > Not the practice of the several pro outdoor photogs I know. They long ago > > stopped shooting things they know wouldn't sell & they have shot enough, > > under most conditions, that there are very few situations they aren't > > photographically familiar with. > > > > If what you say were true then the current digital pro would most likely > be > > saving all digital images shot to learn the shooting process. > > > > Kenneth Waller > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 2:34 PM > > Subject: RE: Who has an istDS? > > > > > > > No, pros didn't throw away the bad ones. They were saved on contact > > sheets > > > and negatives, and became valuable tools in both the editing process and > > > helping the photographer understand the shooting process. many photogs > > > "shoot to a climax" and having all the frames available is most helpful. > > > And sometimes, years later, the "bad one" could turn out to be a money > > > maker, or have some value for a client. > >
