At 05:23 AM 9/25/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Mark Cassino wrote:
>
> > Right on that. Traditional photography is
> > like trying to learn the piano without hearing
> > what you play. It would be like paying a piece,
> > sending in a tape, and a day or so later finally
> > hearing it. I also set and prep the shot with
> > the digitcam, and then take it with a 35mm for
> > the final 'keeper.'
>
>A very interesting comment, Mark, and one I don't understand.
>First, how can you prep a shot with one camera and then make a
>second "keeper" with anything but a static subject. IOW, if you're
>shooting a living, breathing entity, the second shot will not be the
>same as the first shot. All you can hope to do is get a general idea
>of what the final shot will be like, but if the light changes or the
>subject is no longer there, you're out of luck.
You are quite right, Shel - and I should clarify that I'm not using the
digital to do this kind of work with dynamic objects. You really can't
test-shoot a candid or wildlife, or macro of a living subject.
I've been experimenting with this in a couple of a areas. First, with
landscapes. While the light does change, I can get a feel for how the shot
comes together with the digital. I haven't done much with landscapes and
still routinely experience that situation where a shot that looks just
great to the eye as I stand there turns out to be a downright boring
landscape image. The digital helps with that in that I can test things out
and see what works and what doesn't.
Focal length is a major limiter here, though. My digital only has the
equivalent of a 38 - 135 (or something like that) lens, so it doesn't do
much for a landscape that I may want to take with a 24mm (unless / until I
get a wide angle adapter.)
Otherwise, the Digital perspective and film is basically the same for this
kind of work. While the digital yields far more DOF at equivalent F stops,
for landscape work I have a good idea how far to stop down the SLR to get
the desired DOF.
The other area is still lifes. I never did much with those either, but
again the digital lets me experiment, reject things that don't work, and
ultimately shoot something good with a 35mm. I'm still experimenting in
this area - but the thing I'm playing around with is flash illuminated
studio macros. Here I can set up and shoot with the digital, try to tweak
the lighting to adjust shadows etc, and keep at it till its right. As an
odd quirk of going digital I'm using manual flash setups. (Maybe this is
an odd quirk of being too cheap to buy the 'TTL' flash for my
digital.) Anyhow - I haven't actually accomplished anything doing this,
but I'm working towards a system where I just unplug the flashes, pull the
tripod with the digital away, and replace it with an SLR on tripod.
>Further, if you know what you're doing with a film camera, you'll know
>if you got the shot or not. It's neither rocket science nor brain
>surgery. Your piano analogy, I think, is a bit off base. With a
>camera
>you continually see the subject, it's not as though you're shooting
>with your eyes closed.
If I'm shooting a subject matter and style I'm experienced at, I do usually
know if the shot comes out. I still get surprised though. And in areas
where I'm experimenting ( or when using flash setups where you can't really
see the flash results) I like the instant feedback.
> And, just for the sake of argument, there are
>numerous composers who can write music without ever having to hear it
>on an instrument. They know what the notes and chords will sound
>like. Wasn't it Bethoven who composed while deaf - although I suppose
>he was a special example.
LOL, Shel - I do think Beethoven was a special example.
>If you're using a digital camera the way some photographers use a
>Polaroid back, then I can see the value of your system. Great for
>still life photography, posed situations, and the like, but not of
>much use for shooting life on the streets, children at play, and even
>family snaps - unless your family is like those portrayed in American
>Gothic <g>.
That's basically it - though a polariod back would be better because then
you have exactly what the camera sees.
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
http://www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - -
-
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 .
