Hi Shel,
I think that having gone from largely 35mm to largely medium format a
couple of years before I switched to digital was a plus. My experience
shooting ten exposure rolls of expensive film made me more cautious and
more critical of the subject matter. When I moved to digital I was well
aware of the danger of having too many frames at my disposal. So I
tried to retain at least some of the MF mindset. That's not to say that
I won't take advantage of having a lot of frames. I will, for example,
auto bracket some critical shots at three different stops with digital
where I might only have manually bracketed at one stop with MF, but I
hope I've retained some of the medium format mindset.
Now this medium format mindset didn't take effect immediately. I also
remember going through a phase that I would call, "Testing and
Bonding." It's the first phase of digital where the most important
thing is learning what the camera can do and becoming accustomed to its
controls. During that period, I shot everything and produced a horde of
bad photos, but I became familiar with the camera. When one day I
realized that I no longer had to really think about how the camera
worked, I made the switch back from shutter tripper to cautious
shooter.
I think you're probably going about this the right way, but you're
still in phase one. One day soon you'll probably find that your
attention will turn away from the camera itself and return to the
business at hand. And since you have a history of careful composition
and studied work, you will automatically take up where you left off,
but you'll have the added convenience of digital. Once that happens,
you'll be free to focus more on the digital workflow and fine tuning
your post exposure methodology.
Paul
On Oct 15, 2005, at 9:09 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi Paul ...
I guess I've not completely wrapped my head around digital, although I
do
like some of the control that can be had, and I ~definitely~ like not
having to process film. However, I'm not at all happy with the work
I've
produced, perhaps because the camera and have not made friends yet,
perhaps
because I'm just going through a creative dry spell, or perhaps I just
suck
... so much of my stuff is such drivel these days.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist
I can't answer for Bill, but I can say with certainty that digital has
improved the quality of my work. It has certainly boosted my
photographic income. The car magazines I shoot for are thrilled with
the accuracy that I can achieve in replicating the original color of
the sheetmetal. The stock house I work with has mentioned that my
number of "keepers" has inrcreased dramatically in the past year.
Digital does present an opportunity to shoot a lot of junk, but it
also
enables one to work faster and better.
BTW, I enjoyed Bill's vacation pics. I don't think he intended that
trip to be a photo safari. He just snapped some casual pics along the
way. I found the quality at least the equal to similar things he has
shown in the past.
Paul
On Oct 15, 2005, at 8:41 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
How many are worth showing? How many are you proud of? What's the
percentage of good keepers compared to what you shot with film?
To be candid, Bill, the quality of your vacation pics this year -
certainly
wrt subject matter - is, imo, definitely a few notches below what
you've
done previously. Do you think shooting all those free pix with a
digi
cam
may have something to do with it? Or, conversely, does using a
larger
format film camera contribute to producing better results.
I'm really curious to know if you think digi use has affected the
quality
of your work?
Shel
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:49:19 +0100, William Robb
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since I bought the istD, I have purchased ten lenses, seven of
which
were purchased new.
And I've shot over 9500 pictures.
