Any people who have low mileage with their equipment?

We are actually encouraged by manufacturers of cameras with a video heritage like my Lumix to shoot machine gun analog " bursts" and pick out the one that is the critical moment. And why not,if we can? Arguably from one point of view this is dumbing down our skills to a mediocre level. But then who will know and care, but us. Ike so. If we want to catch the two deer in a pose then we may have a choice if we fire a burst in anticipation.... Is choice not always better than less choice. Or saying Damn It, he moved!.

We are findibg out life is a video stream we can never quite catch up to when we look closely at the neuroscience of brains our visual brains. This is known-- We are always "catching up "with the world 200 milliseconds after something happened, say neuro scientists who have MRI evidence and experimental evidence. Thus , following that, we can never really participate in the "critical moment." An illusory goal. We choose from the stream of still images which are always late. Our visual cortex is not designed for it. True. Science says so.

I think the digital age has brought out the ability to waste multitudes of shots, in hopes of "catching" the right one, rather than developing the ability to identify the right shot at what has been called "the critical moment". While I won't disparage those who choose to do this, I wonder if it doesn't simply "dumb down" photography in the long run- losing touch with the art, and making more contact with the "mass production" of shots?

Scott, suggesting that someone’s way of shooting is a “dumb[ing] down” and losing touch with the art does seem to me a bit disparaging. Including a caveat that you’re not being disparaging is nice of you but doesn’t really make what you’re saying less disparaging.

That being said, I shoot digitally and I don’t think of myself as wasting multitudes of shots. And I don’t spend a whole lot of time judging how others shoot. I figure there are as many ways to handle photography as there are photographers, and different styles and methods just come with the territory. Some people take a whole lot of shots, trying to get the one they will ultimate want. Others limit how many they'll take. I’m glad people shoot differently and come up with very different sorts of photos.

Your first post is welcome and just fine. Glad you spoke up. Even if I disagree with a bit of what you said, I’m glad you joined the discussion and hope you continue to participate.

Gerry makes a good point about critical moments. I recognize their importance but also try not to place an undue amount of emphasis on this thing we call a moment. I think many photographs are about a much larger point than a moment, sometimes a pretty important story or idea. IMO, many aspects of a photo can wind up being as or even more important than whichever particular moment is stilled by the camera.

Value is inextricably attached to rarity......

I agree that in many, though not all, cases, it is. I also think that rarity is not necessarily the same as small quantities. Taking fewer pictures isn't tantamount to rarity. Mind you, I'm neither advocating nor arguing against taking a lot of shots. I'm arguing that people should do what they want. But the rare photograph won't necessarily come from either method. It will come from something else besides the amount of shots taken, perhaps from a lot of other things, IMO.

I'm arguing that people should do what they want.

This.

While I get the sentiment against "machine gun style shooting", there are also scenarios where it does make sense. The increased ability (with digital and faster cameras) to take numerous photos to ensure that "special" one, has also changed customer expectations. You just don't miss that first kiss after the marriage, that goal being scored - there is no excuse except not being there as a photographer. And those are shots that make the money. Shooting multiple shots doesn't necessarily mean you're incompetent, it might mean you're professional enough to increase your chances of doing it right.

Likewise, also for slower types of photography, shooting a few shots more to experiment and try, isn't a bad thing. You learn a lot from it. The idea that every photo you end up deleting is a waste (of time, diskspace or a negative) is silly: you learn at least as much from the failed shots as you do from those keepers.

Doesn't mean I think there is anything wrong with more disciplined shooting, but it's not better by definition, nor does it make one a better photographer by definition. We all have our own way of learning and working, and that's only for the better else we'd all end up with the same photos.

You just don't miss that first kiss after the marriage . . .

Though nine times out of ten the first fight would be more interesting and make for a better photo! :cool:

I thought the topic was about how old your gear is.

Ross, below is the majority of what the OP said. Note how many times the number of shots taken is brought up. Seems like that's a large part of the topic, no?

In the film days I was happy with 1 roll per day when I was traveling. With digital not much have changed, well maybe 30-50 max images per day, sometimes even just 20, if I am at home maybe a bit less than that. Granted I don't do wildlife, sports etc ... With friends and family like Christmas function etc like with a group of 80 people .. I might fire out maybe 50 on that 2hr session but that's about it. I usually do some group shots but seldom do individual or few people together because many don't want a camera pointed at them. If they do it's just shared on social media and never a print. Something they just glance over in seconds.

 

Over time with my own stuff I have also taken less because even if there are no film/lab costs many of the images just sit on my hard drive and never gets reviewed.

Folks like myself who don't take pictures for a living have the luxury of casual hobbyist practice.

That will always be an obvious distinction.

I speak from a perspective of personal satisfaction as opposed to providing satisfaction to a customer.

Another different set of perspectives are those of photographer vs viewer.

I get the most satisfaction from my own photos when I get that magic shot from an old film camera. The sentimentality of using the old equipment goes hand in hand with the sentimental nature of capturing a moment in time.

But the satisfaction I get from viewing photos from others has little to do with their method or frame rate because I am usually, for the most part, ignorant of the specifics of the image capture circumstance. I simply enjoy the view.

Ross, below is the majority of what the OP said. Note how many times the number of shots taken is brought up. Seems like that's a large part of the topic, no?

Well I do not take that many photos myself. About a roll a week is all.

Lightroom makes editing easy

Maybe. - To those who don't consider it their cup of tea I also recommend either Irfanview or Faststone Viewer (the latter seems to support more recent cameras &/ DNGs) for culling.

Upon low mileage: How many frames per romance, if you were a teen (or at college) again, with your current kit & photographic level? - I guess 3K could be close to nothing.

How much I didn't shoot in the past partially depended on no money for film, slow burst rates, very finite buffers plus time and opportunities wasted by focus acquisition attempts. I still only own just one somewhat sports capable body, but I notice it clicks more frequently at the same kind of outing involving other people.

Spray & pray is no cure all, but I'd rather bin 2 dozen frames for one keeper than bring 3 "meh" shots home.

Does click count matter at all anymore? - Who'll want to buy and salvage a 20 year old shutter with still 66% life expectancy? Aren't we at a point where we should wonder "will I be able to borrow enough interesting comic books to kill the old 6MP by copying them?" or figure out intellectual property neutral similar use cases?

Yes, I feel lazy and shooting not enough too.

"

I have also taken less because even if there are no film/lab costs many of the images just sit on my hard drive and never gets reviewed." - Could it be those were "not enough" instead of "many"? - Chasing a dozen keeper portraits of every VIP in my life, I can imagine myself running out of HDD space sooner or later if I'd shoot more. - That could urge me to edit rigorously, instead of keeping questionable stuff since it is all I have. - Thats at least what I am analyzing out of film shooter habits.

Getting reviewd? - My dream would be 50% of the 64GB Micro SD I bought for my tablet yesterday filled with brag shot JEPEGs + the story of my life ready to cross any language barrier.

I've found that as my cameras get faster I often shoot less and will slow down the frame rate. Back in the news/film days I would go through maybe 40 rolls of film a week without thinking about it. Of course I wasn't paying for all that but I shot what I needed and a few that I didn't. 6-8 rolls at a college football game and got maybe 5-6 decent ones per roll. I also shoot as many as I think I need at a wedding. What always cracks me up though is going to a wedding as a guest and observing the paid photographers. There seem to always be 2 or 3 now and they are shooting as fast as they can go and will get 5000 images at a wedding not to mention videos from a drone or two flying around the event.. I still wonder if they found that many different things to shoot or if they are shooting 5000 images just to hide the fact that most of them are crap. I must be getting old.

Rick H.

ere seem to always be 2 or 3 now and they are shooting as fast as they can go and will get 5000 images at a wedding not to mention videos from a drone or two flying around the event.

A few years back, I was at a wedding and an "old" locally decently well known pro had been hired to photograph it. He had the same batch of equipment I've always seen him with-a 500c or 500c/m with a couple of chrome lenses. My local camera store tells me that it was passed down from his dad who started the business, but I'm sure it's maintained impeccably.

At the reception, he had the camera on a Stroboframe, and nothing fancy added on to it-it wouldn't surprise me if he was using a Vivitar 283/285HV although I didn't get close enough to look. About the only concession to modern technology was some sort of Fong Dong on it, or for all I know it was a piece of tupperware he'd been using since before anyone knew who Gary Fong was. I'd guess he maybe shot a dozen rolls over the course of the reception. For anyone doing the math, that's 144 frames.

I heard someone else comment "I can't believe they hired a photographer who takes that few photos." Of course, that doesn't include the posted formals-he may have had ~20 rolls to show for the days work. My unspoken response was "I'll bet they get an album that knocks the socks of a lot of what other folks get-and he doesn't have to look at 5000 pictures to find the good ones."

Along those same lines, the photographer at my sister's wedding used a Finepix S3 Pro(this was in 2005, a time when the Fuji cameras were incredibly popular with wedding photographers). Anyone who has used these cameras(I have one) can tell you that they are obnoxiously slow and clunky. This is especially true if you're using the high dynamic range mode that was a selling point for wedding photographers. Not to site-track too much, but the Finepix Pro series cameras all used Fuji's "Super CCD" technology that used two pixels per photo site extend DR, and it took the camera a long time to "crunch" that data together. I'm not talking purely about frame rate, either. In HDR mode, it has maybe a 6 shot JPEG buffer, and once you've started filling the buffer you can't change ANY setting on the camera until it clears.

Aside from that, the camera is a Nikon N80 under all the technology(the S1 and S2 actually required both CR123As to power the autofocus, shutter, and related "camera" parts then needs AAs to power the sensor and related "guts") .

I say all that to say that in the reception, I'd guess he took 400-500 images, or probably about on par with what a 35mm photographer would have taken. He still managed a good album.

I'll throw in one other wedding story. This past summer, I went to a family wedding that took place at the old family homeplace(or family farm for those of you who ain't from around here). The home had been falling into disrepair for years, and the happy couple-a 3rd cousin of mine and her new husband-had taken on the task of doing a relatively historically accurate restoration of the ~150 year old home(right down to getting blown glass window planes to replace the broken ones). In any case, I had an F3, F100, and my then new D70 with me(my first Nikon DSLR-how things have changed quickly :) ). I was shooting Velvia in the F3 and Tri-X in the F100. I had the full blessing of my cousin, and most of my photographs were of the house and grounds along with a few of other family members together that likely would have fallen under the radar of the "official" photog. The house photos were for me, but also to send to out-of-state family-in particular a now-deceased uncle who had been born in the house. There were two drones and probably 3 or 4 "official" photographers, and I got the death stare at one point from each of them despite the fact that I made sure to stay out of their way. My cousin-the bride-at one point actually went over to one of them and said "He's not taking pictures of any of the things you all are and he has my blessing-leave him alone." They never said anything to me, but I still felt like I was under their microscope.

...They never said anything to me, but I still felt like I was under their microscope.

Hmm... they should all be

killed...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Here is another take on the digital/film discussion...

I found it kind of interesting...

Scott

Here is another take on the digital/film discussion...

 

I found it kind of interesting...

 

Scott

Yeah, I've seen that before and got into a lengthy on-line debate over it. ;)

Even though I'm a fan of film and shoot a lot of it, I don't think long term storage is a reason you should be shooting film instead of digital. But if you are shooting digital, you do need to think about long term storage differently and more deliberately than someone who shoots exclusively film does.

As kind of an aside, I did get a warning from xfinity (comcast) about exceeding my usage limits this month. I was a little surprised since I didn't realize I had usage limits. Anyway the limit is 1 TB and the reason I exceeded it is that I did some revamping of my photo storage and basically now have two offsite backups of my digital photo library along with a backup to an external drive array. I've had a single on-line backup for a few years now.

The issue for me with digital is making sure that when I die, someone knows where to find the pics. I am hedging my bets a little. For the last 18 years, basically since my son was born, I've been giving archival photo books to my wife every year for Mother's day. So my family will have those even if the digital copies get lost.

I respect anyone’s desire to shoot film. But I think it’s likely insecurity that drives someone who loves shooting film to tell others that they should do so as well. To me, it would be a sign of more confidence if he were simply ok with others doing what they wanted. I only watched the first minute and a half of the video. Had I sensed that 30 minutes of a slideshow displaying a brilliant body of photographs taken with film were going to follow in the remaining time of the video, I might have watched the rest. Someone let me know if that’s what I missed and I’ll go back and watch the rest of it.

The issue for me with digital is making sure that when I die, someone knows where to find the pics. I am hedging my bets a little. For the last 18 years, basically since my son was born, I've been giving archival photo books to my wife every year for Mother's day. So my family will have those even if the digital copies get lost.

That’s a nice idea. I’ve made some books and scrapbooks of family celebrations that I like to think will be passed down for a couple or more generations. As far as my more personal photography, which is the majority of it, it’s ok with me if it has a more evanescent existence. If it turns out it was just meant to be something that had meaning for me and a few others who I shared it with at the time, that’s fine. Besides, so much of my energy is taken with deciding what song or piece of music will be played at my funeral that I don’t have much time left for thinking about the posthumous role of my photos. :)

digital/film discussion

The only issue with the whole discussion is that people feel a need to present it as an absolute choice between one or the other. And then, depending on which side they've chosen, they start to pick reasons why their choice is better. More often than not showing ignorance.

It's not an "either/or" choice at all. Each recording medium has its strong and weak points, which is fine. Based on what your objective is or what you need, you pick the medium that works best for you. And if so needed, you end up using both, mixing and matching as needed. It can easily be an "and/and" thing.

So, the digital/film discussion at best is about the merits of each medium, but any conclusion that one is indisputably better than the other (and that hence you should use it) is just BS.

It isn't insecurity, I expect.

Suggesting others shoot film is natural for folks who enjoy it.

For us old guys it's sentimental affection that is inextricably tied to the finely mellowed images we accumulated over the years.

An affinity for things that worked well and withstood the test of time.

For the younger folks I expect it is curious fascination.

Suggesting others shoot film is natural for folks who enjoy it.

Someone who loves film suggesting others shoot film may be natural. Not sure why it would be. For instance, I love shooting pics of middle-aged gay men and I’ve never once suggested to someone else they do this, too. But, let’s say it is natural for at least some people who love shooting film to suggest it for others. That’s different from telling them they SHOULD be doing it.

That’s a nice idea. I’ve made some books and scrapbooks of family celebrations that I like to think will be passed down for a couple or more generations. As far as my more personal photography, which is the majority of it, it’s ok with me if it has a more evanescent existence. If it turns out it was just meant to be something that had meaning for me and a few others who I shared it with at the time, that’s fine. Besides, so much of my energy is taken with deciding what song or piece of music will be played at my funeral that I don’t have much time left for thinking about the posthumous role of my photos. :)

I've sort of come to that conclusion with even my family photos. I hope that my kids will have access to photos and videos from their childhood. I'm less concerned that all the photos that my brother scanned of my aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins. etc. survive. That may sound a little harsh. I'm glad to have them but I think the reality is that most of these people will seem like strangers to my kids 40 years from now. If they have an interest in their family history and want to keep them, that's great. If they don't, I won't be bothered by it, especially since I'll be dead. In practical terms what that means is that I won't be going to great efforts to document and record who those people are. I might change my mind in a few decades but that's my thinking now.

I've sort of come to that conclusion with even my family photos. I hope that my kids will have access to photos and videos from their childhood. I'm less concerned that all the photos that my brother scanned of my aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins. etc. survive. That may sound a little harsh. I'm glad to have them but I think the reality is that most of these people will seem like strangers to my kids 40 years from now. If they have an interest in their family history and want to keep them, that's great. If they don't, I won't be bothered by it, especially since I'll be dead. In practical terms what that means is that I won't be going to great efforts to document and record who those people are. I might change my mind in a few decades but that's my thinking now.

I'm starting to go through my fathers THOUSANDS of negatives from over 50 years or so of photography, and would love to know who a lot of the people were! Especially the family photos. But that may be just me... I find it interesting...

Scott

I'm starting to go through my fathers THOUSANDS of negatives from over 50 years or so of photography, and would love to know who a lot of the people were! Especially the family photos. .

 

Scott

I have my parents and grandparents photos and some of them are from the late 1800's. However the one's that somebody wrote on the back of the prints the names of everyone are golden. Many others cannot be identified. They are probably relatives but then maybe just somebody that was over for the festivities of the day.